Legal Opinion

Russell v. Mystic Seaport Museum, Inc.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided April 4, 2000No. SC 16102PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

SULLIVAN, J.

The dispositive issues in this certified appeal require that we interpret General Statutes §31-294c1 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (act). First, *599we must determine whether, under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff, Robert Russell, filed a notice of claim for workers’ compensation benefits sufficient to support a motion to preclude the named defendant,2 Mystic Seaport Museum, Inc., from contesting liability. Specifically, we must determine whether the plaintiff supplied a date of injury in his notice of claim for a repetitive trauma injury sufficient to support…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. State v. SchiappaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
  2. Dowling v. SlotnikSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  3. Crochiere v. Board of Education of Town of EnfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
  4. United Illuminating Co. v. GroppoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
  5. Chotkowski v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Hatt v. Burlington Coat FactorySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
  2. State v. WinotSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
  3. State v. SorabellaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
  4. State v. DeloretoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
  5. Murphy v. Commissioner of Motor VehiclesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API