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

2,486 chars

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
         preservation of claims’’). Cases cited by the department
         are inapposite because they do not involve situations
Page 32                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       June 11, 2024

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text