Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 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)

Full Text

2,472 chars
medications 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