Scoullos v. Administrator

Connecticut Superior Court

Scoullos v. Administrator

268 A.2d 249, 28 Conn. Super. Ct. 498, 28 Conn. Supp. 498, 1970 Conn. Super. LEXIS 119

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 23, 1970

DocketFile 162502

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.2d 249 (Scoullos v. Administrator) 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

Scoullos v. Administrator, 268 A.2d 249, 28 Conn. Super. Ct. 498, 28 Conn. Supp. 498, 1970 Conn. Super. LEXIS 119 (Colo. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Parskey, J.

On August 19, 1969, the unemployment compensation commissioner for the first district rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff herein. On August 27, 1969, the commissioner withdrew his decision and assigned the matter for a new hearing, which was held on September 3, 1969. The plaintiff was not present at that hearing. In this court the plaintiff stated that upon the receipt of *499 the August 19 decision he took a trip and was unaware of the withdrawal of that decision or the new hearing until his return subsequent to September 3. As a result of the second hearing, the commissioner reversed himself and denied benefits to the plaintiff. In his first decision, the commissioner found that the plaintiff was under the care of a physician as a result of a heart condition and diabetes, that his health was adversely affected as a result of the increased work load that was thrust upon him by his employer, and that he left his employment for good cause related thereto. In his second decision, the commissioner found that although the plaintiff was under the care of a physician he had not made his condition known to the employer and that he left his employment without good cause related thereto.

In view of the fact that it does not appear that the commissioner gave the plaintiff a fair opportunity to be heard prior to his second decision, his decision cannot stand for lack of due process. Beaverdale Memorial Park, Inc. v. Danaher, 127 Conn. 175, 182.

The appeal is sustained, and the matter is remanded to the commissioner for a rehearing.

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

Parskey, J.

On August 19, 1969, the unemployment compensation commissioner for the first district rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff herein. On August 27, 1969, the commissioner withdrew his decision and assigned the matter for a new hearing, which was held on September 3, 1969. The plaintiff was not present at that hearing. In this court the plaintiff stated that upon the receipt of *499 the August 19 decision he took a trip and was unaware of the withdrawal of that decision or the new hearing until his return subsequent to September 3. As a result of the second hearing, the commissioner reversed himself and denied benefits to the plaintiff. In his first decision, the commissioner found that the plaintiff was under the care of a physician as a result of a heart condition and diabetes, that his health was adversely affected as a result of the increased work load that was thrust upon him by his employer, and that he left his employment for good cause related thereto. In his second decision, the commissioner found that although the plaintiff was under the care of a physician he had not made his condition known to the employer and that he left his employment without good cause related thereto.

In view of the fact that it does not appear that the commissioner gave the plaintiff a fair opportunity to be heard prior to his second decision, his decision cannot stand for lack of due process. Beaverdale Memorial Park, Inc. v. Danaher, 127 Conn. 175, 182.

The appeal is sustained, and the matter is remanded to the commissioner for a rehearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.2d 249, 28 Conn. Super. Ct. 498, 28 Conn. Supp. 498, 1970 Conn. Super. LEXIS 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scoullos-v-administrator-connsuperct-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack