Byars v. Whyco Chromium Co.

637 A.2d 805, 33 Conn. App. 667, 1994 Conn. App. LEXIS 64
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedMarch 1, 1994
Docket12310
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 637 A.2d 805 (Byars v. Whyco Chromium Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Byars v. Whyco Chromium Co., 637 A.2d 805, 33 Conn. App. 667, 1994 Conn. App. LEXIS 64 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought a worker’s compensation claim under chapter 568 of the General Statutes asserting entitlement to compensation benefits, interest and attorney’s fees.

The plaintiff appealed to the compensation review board from the compensation commissioner’s award, which gave the plaintiff certain benefits and interest, but denied attorney’s fees. The board, citing Imbrogno v. Stamford Hospital, 28 Conn. App. 113, 612 A.2d 82, cert. denied, 223 Conn. 920, 615 A.2d 507 (1992), held that where interest was awarded on a compensation [668]*668claim under General Statutes § 31-3001 attorney’s fees must be awarded. The board stated, however, that it could not properly review the claim for attorney’s fees on the record before it and remanded the case to the commissioner for a determination as to whether the plaintiff was represented by counsel for any part of the proceedings and, if so, what fees should be awarded.

A final judgment is necessary for this court to have subject matter jurisdiction. Schick v. Windsor Airmotive Division/Barnes Group, 31 Conn. App. 819, 822, 627 A.2d 478 (1993). The scope of the proceedings on remand determines whether the board decision constitutes a final judgment for purposes of appeal. “[I]f such further proceedings are merely ministerial, the decision is an appealable final judgment, but if further proceedings will require the exercise of independent judgment or discretion and the taking of additional evidence, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed.” Szudora v. Fairfield, 214 Conn. 552, 556, 573 A.2d 1 (1990).

Evidence will be required on the representation question and any award of attorney’s fees rests in the sound discretion of the trier. Link v. Shelton, 186 Conn. 623, 443 A.2d 902 (1982). The additional proceedings require more than a ministerial act.

The appeal is dismissed for lack of a final judgment.

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

Related

Wisniowski v. Planning Commission
655 A.2d 1146 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
637 A.2d 805, 33 Conn. App. 667, 1994 Conn. App. LEXIS 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byars-v-whyco-chromium-co-connappct-1994.