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

2,333 chars

city of Hartford, or [the department], and Estrada did
       not have a good faith belief to the contrary; (3) if any
       errors in state government occurred, they were Estra-
       da’s, and she cannot seek whistleblower protection for
       reporting her own error; (4) § 4-61dd does not transform
       Estrada into a whistleblower for doing what ‘she was
       obliged by her normal work responsibilities’ to do; and
       (5) there [is] no causal connection between Estrada’s
       report and her subsequent discipline, which was instead
       based on Estrada’s underlying mistakes and ongoing
       performance issues over a four year period.’’ Therefore,
       the department contends, because the commission fails
       to mention or challenge all but one of those grounds
       in its brief, it has abandoned any argument on the
       unbriefed grounds.
          ‘‘It is well settled that, in a certified appeal, the focus
       of our review is not the actions of the trial court, but
       the actions of the Appellate Court. . . . The only ques-
       tions that we need consider are those squarely raised
       by the petition for certification, and we will ordinarily
       consider these issues in the form in which they have
       been framed in the Appellate Court.’’ (Internal quotation
       marks omitted.) State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207, 221,
       926 A.2d 633 (2007); see, e.g., id., 222–23 (declining to
       consider issue that was not briefed before Appellate
       Court and not raised in petition for certification). Prac-
       tice Book § 84-9 limits those issues that the appellant
       can present on appeal to ones ‘‘set forth in the petition
       for certification, except where the issues are further
       limited by the order granting certification.’’ See, e.g.,
       State v. Turner, 334 Conn. 660, 686 n.13, 224 A.3d 129
       (2020) (appellant ‘‘may present only those issues for
       which certification has been granted’’).
         We are also mindful that ‘‘[o]ur rules of preservation
       apply to claims, but they do not apply to legal argu-
       ments, and, therefore, [this court] may . . . review
       legal arguments that differ from those raised below if
Page 28                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text