Rydecki v. West Hartford Bd. of Educ., No. Cv91-0443174 (Apr. 30, 1991)

Connecticut Superior Court

Rydecki v. West Hartford Bd. of Educ., No. Cv91-0443174 (Apr. 30, 1991)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 3261, 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 535

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedApril 30, 1991

DocketNo. CV91-0443174

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 3261 (Rydecki v. West Hartford Bd. of Educ., No. Cv91-0443174 (Apr. 30, 1991)) 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

Rydecki v. West Hartford Bd. of Educ., No. Cv91-0443174 (Apr. 30, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 3261, 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 535 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD The plaintiff seeks to vacate the arbitration award for three reasons: First, he claims that General Statutes section52-416(a) requires that the arbitrators issue their decision within thirty days after the hearings are completed. Said statute is not applicable to the present action. Kilpatrick v. Connecticut Educational Assn., Inc., 23 Conn. App. 727.

Second, the plaintiff claims that General Statutes section 31-98 requires that the Board panel shall issue its decision within fifteen days after the hearings are completed. Such time limitation is directory and no not mandatory. Danbury Rubber Co. v. United Rubber Works, 145 Conn. 56; International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Shapiro, 138 Conn. 57, 67-68. CT Page 3262

Third, the plaintiff claims that Dr. Erdel should not have been allowed to testify as to the medical condition of the plaintiff because he had not examined the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff himself raised the issue of his medical condition by supplying the panel with his medical records. Therefore, the Board was justified in allowing Dr. Erdel to examine the records and testify about the information supplied by the plaintiff.

The parties' submission to the arbitration panel was unrestricted. Thus the panel was relieved of any obligation to follow strict rules of law and evidence in reaching its decision. O G/O'Connell Joint Venture v. Chase Family Limited Partnership No. 3, 203 Conn. 133, 148. There is no basis under General Statutes section 52-418 for vacating the award.

Accordingly, the plaintiff's application to vacate the arbitration award is denied and the award is confirmed.

FRANCES ALLEN SENIOR JUDGE

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 RE PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD The plaintiff seeks to vacate the arbitration award for three reasons: First, he claims that General Statutes section52-416(a) requires that the arbitrators issue their decision within thirty days after the hearings are completed. Said statute is not applicable to the present action. Kilpatrick v. Connecticut Educational Assn., Inc., 23 Conn. App. 727.