§ 46a-58
- Citation
- § 46a-58
- Parent Document
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2022-04-26
Other Sections in This Document (128)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
Full Text
2,472 charsmedications to treat her insomnia and anxiety. Although
the referee struck at least one such reference from the
record, the other references apparently were admitted.
The referee referenced these facts in her findings, and,
from her statements during the hearing, she appeared
to believe that they were potentially admissible and
relevant. Allowing the challenged testimony to come in
when the branch had been denied access to the
requested records was an abuse of discretion.
‘‘In order to reverse an agency decision on the basis
of an erroneous evidentiary ruling, it [also] is necessary
that the appellant demonstrate that substantial rights
. . . have been prejudiced . . . .’’ (Internal quotation
marks omitted.) Recycling, Inc. v. Commissioner of
Energy & Environmental Protection, 179 Conn. App.
127, 153, 178 A.3d 1043 (2018); see General Statutes § 4-
183 (j). It is tempting to say that the referee’s error in
admitting evidence of the complainant’s use of medica-
tions was harmless; see, e.g., Concerned Citizens of
Sterling, Inc. v. Connecticut Siting Council, 215 Conn.
474, 488–89, 576 A.2d 510 (1990); insofar as the referee
awarded $50,000 in damages, which falls at the lower
end of what she identified as the prevailing range of
awards for garden-variety emotional distress damages.
See, e.g., Lore v. Syracuse, 670 F.3d 127, 177 (2d Cir.
2012) (‘‘[t]his [c]ourt has . . . affirmed awards of
$125,000 each to plaintiffs for emotional distress result-
ing from age discrimination whe[n] the evidence of
emotional distress consisted only of [nonmedical] testi-
mony establishing shock, nightmares, sleeplessness,
humiliation, and other subjective distress’’ (internal
quotation marks omitted)); Meacham v. Knolls Atomic
Power Laboratory, 381 F.3d 56, 78 (2d Cir. 2004) (noting
that awards of more than $100,000 often are upheld,
even ‘‘without discussion of protracted suffering, truly
egregious conduct, or medical treatment’’), vacated on
other grounds sub nom. KAPL, Inc. v. Meacham, 544
Page 80 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL April 26, 2022