Legal Opinion
Six v. Thomas O'Connor & Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided January 23, 1996No. 15218PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKatz, J.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the named defendant, Thomas O’Connor and Company (defendant), timely notified the defendant Second Injury Fund (fund) of its intent to transfer its workers’ compensation liability to the fund pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1987) § 31-349 (a).1 We *792conclude that the defendant failed to notify the fund timely and, therefore, could not transfer its liability to the fund.
The following facts are relevant to this appeal. On August 4,1987, the plaintiff, Connie Six (claimant), suffered an injury to his left knee during the course of his…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Boehm v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Crochiere v. Board of Education of Town of EnfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- Fair v. People's Savings BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Adzima v. UAC/Norden DivisionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- Vaillancourt v. New Britain Machine/LittonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Dowling v. SlotnikSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Marone v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Angelsea Productions, Inc. v. Commission on Human Rights & OpportunitiesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Doe v. City of StamfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Lafayette v. General Dynamics Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.