Teixeira v. Home Depot, Inc.

164 A.3d 836, 173 Conn. App. 594, 2017 WL 2368561, 2017 Conn. App. LEXIS 223
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedJune 6, 2017
DocketAC38382
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 164 A.3d 836 (Teixeira v. Home Depot, Inc.) 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
Teixeira v. Home Depot, Inc., 164 A.3d 836, 173 Conn. App. 594, 2017 WL 2368561, 2017 Conn. App. LEXIS 223 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Robert Teixeira, appeals from the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commissioner (commissioner) (1) denying the plaintiff's request for a continuance on the rescheduled trial date and (2) concluding that the plaintiff had not met his burden of proof that his discharge from employment by the defendant, The Home Depot, Inc., was retaliatory in violation of the Workers' Compensation Act, General Statutes § 31-275 et seq. (act). 1 We affirm the decision of the commissioner.

After careful review of the record, including the commissioner's decision, and the parties' appellate briefs and oral arguments, we conclude that the commissioner did not abuse her discretion in denying the plaintiff's request for a continuance on the day of the rescheduled trial. See Bove v. Bove , 93 Conn.App. 76 , 84, 888 A.2d 123 (noting Connecticut courts are "especially hesitant to find an abuse of discretion where the court has denied a motion for continuance made on the day of trial" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 919 , 895 A.2d 788 (2006). We note that the commissioner already had continued the matter because the plaintiff discharged his attorney "just before walking into the hearing room" on the day of the previously scheduled trial.

We further conclude that the commissioner properly dismissed the plaintiff's claim of wrongful discharge after finding that the plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden of proof that his discharge was based on his filing a claim or otherwise exercising his rights under the act. The record simply does not reflect that the plaintiff had filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits or otherwise exercised the rights afforded to him pursuant to § 31-290a prior to being notified that his temporary employment by the defendant was coming to an end.

The decision of the Workers' Compensation Commissioner is affirmed.

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

Related

Teixeira v. Home Depot, Inc.
176 A.3d 1194 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
164 A.3d 836, 173 Conn. App. 594, 2017 WL 2368561, 2017 Conn. App. LEXIS 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teixeira-v-home-depot-inc-connappct-2017.