Section 4-61dd

Citation: Section 4-61dd
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

2,200 chars

In Grant v. Bassman, 221 Conn. 465, 604 A.2d 814
          (1992), we held that a defendant’s claim that the plain-
          tiffs had made an exclusive election of workers’ com-
          pensation pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1991)
          § 31-284 (a) was not raised properly by a motion to
          dismiss challenging the court’s subject matter jurisdic-
          tion and should have been raised in a special defense.
          See id., 469–70, 473. In that case, an employee who was
          a minor was injured at work and applied for, and began
          receiving, workers’ compensation benefits for his injur-
          ies. Id., 468. Thereafter, the injured employee and his
          mother filed a personal injury action against the defen-
          dant employer and its president, seeking damages for
          injuries sustained by the employee. Id., 466. The defen-
          dant employer moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ com-
          plaint, arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter
          jurisdiction because the employee had applied for and
          received workers’ compensation benefits for those injur-
          ies. Id. This court explained that ‘‘[t]he purpose of a
          special defense is to plead facts that are consistent
          with the allegations of the complaint but demonstrate,
          nonetheless, that the plaintiff has no cause of action.
          . . . The claim that a plaintiff has elected an exclusive
          remedy relies on facts outside those alleged in the com-
          plaint that operate to negate what may once have been
          a valid cause of action. . . . It is therefore both rational
          and fair to place the burden of pleading and proving
          an election of remedies on the party asserting the claim,
          usually the defendant.’’ (Citations omitted.) Id., 472–73.
          The court concluded that a special defense, and not a
          motion to dismiss, was the proper procedural mecha-
          nism for the defendant employer’s challenge to the
          plaintiffs’ complaint. Id., 473.
0, 0                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 25

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text