Connecticut Statutes

§ 31-241 — Determination of claims and benefits. Notice, hearing and appeal. Regulations.

Connecticut § 31-241
JurisdictionConnecticut
Title 31Labor
Ch. 567Unemployment Compensation

This text of Connecticut § 31-241 (Determination of claims and benefits. Notice, hearing and appeal. Regulations.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-241 (2026).

Text

(a)The administrator, or a deputy or representative designated by the administrator and hereinafter referred to as an examiner, shall promptly examine the initiating claim and, on the basis of the facts found by him or her, shall determine whether or not such claim is valid and, if valid, the weekly amount of benefits payable and the maximum possible duration thereof. The administrator or an examiner shall promptly notify the claimant of the decision and the reasons therefor, which notification shall set forth the provision of this section for appeal. The administrator or an examiner shall promptly examine each claim for a benefit payment for a week of unemployment and, on the basis of the facts found by him or her, shall determine whether or not the claimant is eligible to receive such b

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

Related

Steinberg v. Fusari
364 F. Supp. 922 (D. Connecticut, 1973)
30 case citations
Sieminski v. Administrator, No. Cv94 04 60 34 (Feb. 10, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 1360 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Spada v. Administrator, No. Cv 00 0065600 S (Sep. 18, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 12077 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Aitchison v. Admin., Unemp. Comp. Act, No. Cv 95 0067140 (Jul. 19, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 8280 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Wills v. Administrator, No. Cv 93-0069802-S (Mar. 10, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 2149 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Queen Anne Ent. v. Admin. Unemp. Comp. Act, No. 95-010962s (Jun. 5, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 6193 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Parikh v. Administrator, No. Cv97-74632 (Jun. 12, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 7310 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Lehoux v. Administrator, No. Cv 95 0069891 (May 21, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 4034-II (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Sierra v. Admr Unempl Comp Act, No. Cv 01-0451559s (Dec. 6, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 16065 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)

Legislative History

(1949 Rev., S. 7513; 1955, S. 3077d; 1957, P.A. 596, S. 5; February, 1965, P.A. 347; 1967, P.A. 790, S. 15; 1971, P.A. 835, S. 22; P.A. 73-536, S. 7, 12; P.A. 74-229, S. 18, 22; 74-339, S. 14, 36; P.A. 79-187, S. 2; P.A. 80-260, S. 1; P.A. 87-364, S. 1, 8; P.A. 91-107, S. 1, 2; P.A. 95-323, S. 4, 8; P.A. 12-125, S. 1; P.A. 13-66, S. 2; P.A. 16-169, S. 6.) History: 1965 act specified that 7-day period for appeals excludes Sundays and holidays; 1967 act provided for extension of appeal deadline if last day for filing “falls on any day when the offices of the employment security division are not open for business”; 1971 act replaced provision which allowed payment of benefits which may be affected by hearing only after final determination is reached with provisions setting forth conditions under which payments may be made during the course of the appeal procedure; P.A. 73-536 specified that notification of employers is not necessary “in cases of claimants laid off for lack of work” and reworded notification provision for clarity, deleted references to “merit rating” accounts and to “compensable separations” and deleted provision requiring notification of state or political subdivision in claims where it is designated a base period employer; P.A. 74-229 deleted exception re notification requirement for claimants laid off for lack of work, required notification of employers re initial determination of benefit entitlement in all cases, added provision limiting employer's appeal rights and extended time for appeal to 14 days, deleting former exclusion for Sundays and holidays; P.A. 74-339 required that determination of eligibility be based on evidence presented in person or in writing at hearing and required that benefits be paid regardless of appeal where previously payment of benefits was conditional; P.A. 79-187 required notification of employers “at the time notice is given to the claimant” rather than “in accordance with subsection (f) of section 31-225a”; P.A. 80-260 increased time for appeal to 21 days; P.A. 87-364 provided that an appeal filed after 21 calendar days may be timely if there was good cause for the late filing, and that the postmark of any appeal filed by mail will be used to determine timeliness; P.A. 91-107 designated existing section as Subsec. (a), made a technical change, added provisions re failure of the employer to appear at a hearing or submit a written response and added Subsec. (b) re regulations, effective July 1, 1992; P.A. 95-323 amended Subsec. (a) to allow evidence or testimony presented by telephone or by other electronic means, effective October 1, 1995, and applicable to any separation of employment occurring on or after that date; P.A. 12-125 amended Subsec. (a) to delete “in person,” re presentation of evidence or testimony and add provision re in person hearing prescribed by administrator or examiner; P.A. 13-66 amended Subsec. (a) by adding provision re consequences of employer's failure to appear at a hearing or submit timely and adequate written response re any determination of overpayment made on or after October 1, 2013, and by making a conforming change; P.A. 16-169 amended Subsec. (a) to add provision re hearing by telephone, replace “mailed to his last-known address” with “provided to the claimant or any of such employers”, add Subdiv. (4) re timeliness of appeal filed electronically and make technical changes. Expenses of appeal denied where not claimed before administrator. 133 C. 310. Cited. 135 C. 373; 141 C. 321. Commissioner's conclusion that the unemployment of plaintiffs was due to the existence of a labor dispute is supported by the finding and therefore must stand. 142 C. 497. Cited re section's effect on the speed and fairness of the resolution of contested claims. 175 C. 269. Cited. 192 C. 104; Id., 581; 200 C. 243. Cited. 1 CA 591; 2 CA 1; 9 CA 131; 39 CA 441. Cited. 15 CS 62; 18 CS 11; 23 CS 236; 27 CS 217. For any period subsequent to period covered by commissioner's decision, claimant is entitled to new notification and new 7-day period thereafter in which to take another appeal. 28 CS 248. Effect of late appeal. 30 CS 105. Cited. 37 CS 38; 44 CS 285.

Nearby Sections

15
View on official source ↗

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Connecticut § 31-241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ct/31-241.