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

2,424 chars

is properly raised by a special defense rather than as
         a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court.
            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.
           The Appellate Court has addressed the same issue
         with regard to whistleblower retaliation claims. In Com-
Page 28                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       June 11, 2024

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text