Berger v. Tonken

473 A.2d 782, 192 Conn. 581, 1984 Conn. LEXIS 550
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedApril 3, 1984
Docket11641
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 473 A.2d 782 (Berger v. Tonken) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Berger v. Tonken, 473 A.2d 782, 192 Conn. 581, 1984 Conn. LEXIS 550 (Colo. 1984).

Opinion

Peters, J.

The question presented by this appeal is whether the employment security board of review has a statutory obligation to provide unemployment compensation claimants with free transcripts of the proceedings before an appeals referee whenever the referee’s decision is appealed to the board of review.

The plaintiffs, Brian Berger, Paul Maciejak and Kathleen Crawforth, claimed unemployment compensation benefits, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-240, and each was determined, after a hearing before an appeals referee, to be ineligible for the benefits claimed. Each plaintiff appealed the referee’s decision, and each requested a free transcript of the hearing before the referee, which requests were denied. The plaintiffs then initiated this action against the defendants, the members of the employment security board of review (board of review), claiming that the defendants’ refusal to pro[583]*583vide them with free transcripts of the referees’ hearings on request violated General Statutes § 31-272 (b).1 The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and relief in the nature of mandamus compelling the defendants to provide them, and others similarly situated, with (1) free transcripts of their hearings before appeals referees; and (2) notice of their right to such free transcripts upon the filing of an appeal to the board of review.2 The trial court, Mancini, J., denied the plaintiffs’ requests for relief, holding that the defendants had no statutory obligation to provide the plaintiffs with free transcripts for use in preparing administrative appeals. The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendants. We find no error.

General Statutes §§ 31-240 through 31-249f set forth the procedures for determining claims for unemployment compensation benefits. Claims are initially pre[584]*584sented to an examiner who makes an administrative determination of the claimant’s eligibility. General Statutes § 31-241.3 Both the claimant and the employer [585]*585have a right to appeal the examiner’s decision to an employment security appeals referee, who conducts a hearing de novo and renders a decision accompanied by written findings of fact and conclusions of law. General Statutes § 31-242.4 Any party, including the administrator, may then appeal the referee’s decision to the board of review. General Statutes § 31-249.5 An appeal [586]*586to the board of review “shall be heard on the record of the hearing before the referee, provided if the ends of justice so require, the board may hear additional evidence or testimony.” Id.6 If the board of review modifies the referee’s findings of fact or conclusions of law, it must file its own written findings and conclusions. General Statutes § 31-249. After the parties have exhausted this administrative process, General Statutes § 31-249b7 provides for judicial review of the decisions of the board of review by the Superior Court.

[587]*587The trial court’s memorandum of decision and the parties’ stipulation reveal the following facts. The primary evidentiary hearing to determine eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits is before the appeals referee. Those proceedings are informal and are recorded on tape cassette. The defendants do not provide claimants with free transcripts of the referees’ hearings. The tapes are not routinely transcribed unless there is an appeal to the Superior Court. The defendants will prepare a written transcript of a referee’s hearing at a claimant’s request, for use in preparing an appeal to the board of review, provided the claimant is willing to pay a transcription fee of $1.25 per page. The defendants will provide a claimant with a duplicate tape cassette, on request, for a fee of $5. The defendants do not routinely give notice to claimants of the availability of either tapes or transcripts. The defendants will provide free tapes or transcripts to indigent claimants when ordered by a court to do so.8 At [588]*588oral argument the defendants represented that, while it is their practice to permit any claimant, whether indigent or not, to listen, on request, to the defendants’ copy of the tape, at a time and place convenient to the parties, they do not routinely give notice of this practice.9

At the outset it is useful to set forth the issues that are not now before us. The plaintiffs have raised no claim that the defendants’ failure to provide them with written transcripts violates any provision of either the federal or state constitution. They have not alleged that the defendants have effectively prevented them from presenting their appeals to the board of review by denying them all access to the record of the factfinding hearings. They never sought access to the hearing tapes and raised no issue with respect to the tapes’ availability. Further, the plaintiffs never claimed to be indigent, nor did they raise any claims concerning the rights of indigents. Finally, although the plaintiffs claimed in the trial court and in this court that the Freedom of Information Act compelled the defendants to provide them with written transcripts, the plaintiffs never filed complaints with the Freedom of Information Commission and did not plead any Freedom of Information Act violation in their complaint. There is, therefore, no issue properly before us with respect to the Freedom of Information Act.

[589]*589The plaintiffs’ only claim on this appeal is that General Statutes § 31-244a,10 which provides that “[a] record shall be prepared of all testimony and proceedings at any hearing before a referee . . . but need not be transcribed unless an appeal is taken from the referee’s or board’s decision,” mandates the preparation of a written transcript whenever the referee’s decision is appealed to the board of review, and that General Statutes § 31-272 (b) (1), which prohibits the taxing of “any fees or costs against any employee or employer in any proceeding regarding claims for benefits under this chapter,” requires the defendants to provide the plaintiffs with written transcripts free of charge, regardless of their ability to pay. We disagree.

In examining the statutory requirements concerning the transcription of unemployment compensation hearing records, we must consider the statutory scheme as a whole, giving meaning to every section, and assuming no word or phrase to be superfluous. State v. Freedom of Information Commission, 184 Conn. 102, 107, 441 A.2d 53 (1981); Robinson v. Unemployment Security Board of Review, 181 Conn. 1, 14, 434 A.2d 293 (1980). Where, as here, more than one statute is involved, we presume that the legislature intended them to be read together to create a harmonious body of law; Vartuli v. Sotire, 192 Conn. 353, 362, 472 A.2d 336 (1984); [590]*590McLaughlin Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 192 Conn. 558, 563 n.7, 473 A.2d 1185

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

Related

State v. Garcia
949 A.2d 499 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2008)
State v. George B.
785 A.2d 573 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2001)
Thompson v. State, No. Cv98 0063936 (Nov. 23, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 14864 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Redenz v. Zoning Board of Appeals, No. Cv 97 0328495 S (Feb. 24, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 2177 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Buscher v. Admin. Unemployment Comp. Act, No. Cv-97-0571229 (Jan. 8, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 1306 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Perry v. Myers, No. 0541377 (Nov. 13, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 12277 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
State v. Corrigan, No. Mv 10-6028 62 (Aug. 21, 1997)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 3196 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Dodd v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co.
698 A.2d 859 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1997)
Mrosek v. MacPherson, No. Sph 89843 (Apr. 7, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 2273 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Stein v. Hillebrand
688 A.2d 1317 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1997)
Studwell v. Chro, No. 122314 (Jul. 11, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 7606 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Hackett v. Chro, No. 0122312 (Mar. 29, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 3023 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Whalen v. Ives
654 A.2d 798 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1995)
Gayle v. Young, No. Spbr 9409-27973 (Feb. 6, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 1198-X (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
MacKenzie v. Rascati, No. Spnh 941241586 (Jan. 17, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 742 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Furhman v. Department of Transportation
638 A.2d 1091 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1994)
Department of Administrative Services v. Employees' Review Board
628 A.2d 957 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1993)
Kuchy v. Planning Zoning Comm'n of Bozrah, No. 51 35 28 (Oct. 21, 1991)
1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 8436 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
473 A.2d 782, 192 Conn. 581, 1984 Conn. LEXIS 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berger-v-tonken-conn-1984.