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

2,441 chars

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
          they are subsumed within or intertwined with argu-
          ments related to the legal claim before the court.’’ (Inter-
June 11, 2024            CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       Page 31

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text