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

2,513 chars

they are subsumed within or intertwined with argu-
          ments related to the legal claim before the court.’’ (Inter-
          nal quotation marks omitted.) Jobe v. Commissioner of
          Correction, 334 Conn. 636, 644 n.2, 224 A.3d 147 (2020).
              This case presents a unique situation in which the
          petition for certification and the statement in response
          to the petition indicate that certification was sought
          regarding two main questions: (1) whether the commis-
          sion had subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) whether the
          Appellate Court properly held that Estrada’s disclosure
          was not a protected disclosure under § 4-61dd. Although,
          in its petition for certification, the commission broke
          this second question into four interrelated questions, it
          is fair to characterize them as falling within the depart-
          ment’s broader second question. This court granted cer-
          tification on the jurisdictional question and a narrower
          second question focusing only on the actual violation
          of a statute or a reasonable, good faith belief that such
          a violation had occurred. See footnote 4 of this opinion.
          Accordingly, the commission limited its briefing to this
          question and the jurisdictional question. Unlike cases in
          which an unpreserved claim was not raised before the
          Appellate Court or not raised in a petition for certifica-
          tion, in the present case, the petition filed by the com-
          mission satisfied both of these requirements. ‘‘[A]lthough
          [this] court is not bound to consider claims that were
          not raised at trial [or in the Appellate Court], it has the
          authority to do so in its discretion . . . .’’ (Emphasis
          omitted.) Blumberg Associates Worldwide, Inc. v.
          Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc., 311 Conn. 123,
          143, 84 A.3d 840 (2014). Interests of justice weigh heav-
          ily in favor of not penalizing the commission for this
          court’s certification of a more narrowly tailored ques-
          tion than what the parties had requested. Cf. id., 160
          (‘‘interests of justice, fairness, integrity of the courts
          and consistency of the law significantly outweigh the
          interest in enforcing procedural rules governing the
0, 0                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 29

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text