Dept. of Public Health v. Estrada, 349 Conn. 223 (2024)

Citation: Dept. of Public Health v. Estrada, 349 Conn. 223 (2024)
Parent Document: Dept. of Public Health v. Estrada, 349 Conn. 223 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-06-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131752/dept-of-public-health-v-estrada/ ↗

Full Text

2,424 chars

the action. . . . It is well established that, in determin-
          ing whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction,
          every presumption favoring jurisdiction should be
          indulged.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis added; internal
          quotation marks omitted.) Amodio v. Amodio, 247
          Conn. 724, 727–28, 724 A.2d 1084 (1999); see, e.g., Per-
          eira v. State Board of Education, 304 Conn. 1, 43 n.30,
          37 A.3d 625 (2012).
             It is equally well established that ‘‘[t]he sovereign
          immunity enjoyed by the state is not absolute.’’ (Internal
          quotation marks omitted.) Columbia Air Services, Inc.
          v. Dept. of Transportation, 293 Conn. 342, 349, 977 A.2d
          636 (2009). There are three exceptions to sovereign
          immunity; relevant to this appeal is the first, which
          applies ‘‘when the legislature, either expressly or by
          force of a necessary implication, statutorily waives the
          state’s sovereign immunity . . . . For a claim made
          pursuant to [this] exception, this court has recognized
          the well established principle that statutes in derogation
          of sovereign immunity should be strictly construed.
          . . . [When] there is any doubt about their meaning or
          intent they are given the effect which makes the least
          rather than the most change in sovereign immunity.
          . . . In the absence of a proper factual basis in the
          complaint to support the applicability of these excep-
          tions, the granting of a motion to dismiss on sovereign
          immunity grounds is proper.’’ (Citations omitted; inter-
          nal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 349–50.
             On appeal, the department contends that § 4-61dd (e)
          waives sovereign immunity, and the meaning of that
          waiver necessarily implicates sovereign immunity, not
          an election of remedies issue. According to the depart-
          ment, the ‘‘alternative’’ mechanisms in § 4-61dd (e) are
          mutually exclusive, and, therefore, the commission lacked
          subject matter jurisdiction because § 4-61dd (e) does
          not waive sovereign immunity with respect to duplica-
          tive claims. In this case, the department contends that,
0, 0                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 15

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text