Legal Opinion
Dinino v. Federal Express Corp.
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided September 12, 2017No. AC38798PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPrescott, J.
It is well established that the Workers' Compensation Act, General Statutes § 31-275 et seq. (act), provides the exclusive remedy for most workers injured in the course of their employment. This appeal arises out of an action by the plaintiff, Quintino DiNino, Jr., in which he alleges that his employer, Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) and his coworker, Ernest Hawkins, are liable for injuries that he suffered in a work related accident. The plaintiff appeals from the trial court's granting of two separate motions for summary judgment in favor of each defendant. On appeal, the plaintiff…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Mingachos v. CBS, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Doe v. Yale UniversitySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- Jett v. DunlapSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Binkowski v. Bd. of Educ. of New HavenConnecticut Appellate Court · 2017
- Binkowski v. Board of EducationConnecticut Appellate Court · 2018