Allison v. Silverlieb, No. 32 85 26 (Nov. 12, 1997)

Connecticut Superior Court

Allison v. Silverlieb, No. 32 85 26 (Nov. 12, 1997)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 11899, 20 Conn. L. Rptr. 616

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 12, 1997

DocketNo. 32 85 26

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 11899 (Allison v. Silverlieb, No. 32 85 26 (Nov. 12, 1997)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allison v. Silverlieb, No. 32 85 26 (Nov. 12, 1997), 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 11899, 20 Conn. L. Rptr. 616 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Plaintiff's motion to strike is denied. The exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act are "not at all adenial of jurisdiction in the Superior Court, as such, but . . .a destruction of an otherwise existent common-law right ofaction." (Emphasis in original.) Grant v. Bassman,221 Conn. 465, 472, 604 A.2d 814 (1992). "In other words, thereis not a lack of jurisdiction in the court but a want of a causeCT Page 11900of action in the plaintiff." (Emphasis in original.) Grant v.Bassman, supra, 221 Conn. 472, citing Fusaro v. Chase Brass Copper Co., 21 Conn. Sup. 240, 154 A.2d 138 (1956). Therefore, "a claim that an injured plaintiff has made an exclusive election of workers' compensation is properly raised by special defense."Grant v. Bassman, supra, 221 Conn. 472; see also Caron v.Connecticut Light Power Co., Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury, Docket No. 32 08 34 (April 16, 1996) (Moraghan, J.) (holding that a special defense, not a motion to strike, is the proper vehicle to challenge the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that it is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act).

Leheny, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Plaintiff's motion to strike is denied. The exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act are "not at all adenial of jurisdiction in the Superior Court, as such, but . . .a destruction of an otherwise existent common-law right ofaction." (Emphasis in original.) Grant v. Bassman,221 Conn. 465, 472, 604 A.2d 814 (1992). "In other words, thereis not a lack of jurisdiction in the court but a want of a causeCT Page 11900of action in the plaintiff." (Emphasis in original.) Grant v.Bassman, supra, 221 Conn. 472, citing Fusaro v. Chase Brass Copper Co., 21 Conn. Sup. 240, 154 A.2d 138 (1956). Therefore, "a claim that an injured plaintiff has made an exclusive election of workers' compensation is properly raised by special defense."Grant v. Bassman, supra, 221 Conn. 472; see also Caron v.Connecticut Light Power Co., Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury, Docket No. 32 08 34 (April 16, 1996) (Moraghan, J.) (holding that a special defense, not a motion to strike, is the proper vehicle to challenge the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that it is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act).

Leheny, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 11899, 20 Conn. L. Rptr. 616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allison-v-silverlieb-no-32-85-26-nov-12-1997-connsuperct-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack