Legal Opinion
Badolato v. City of New Britain
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided September 28, 1999No. SC 16084PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MCDONALD, J.
In this appeal, we must decide whether the compensation review board (board) properly concluded that the defendant second injury fund (fund) was not obligated to reimburse the named defendant, the city of New Britain (city), for payments made to maintain medical benefits and insurance coverage for the plaintiff, John Badolato, on or after July 1, 1995. Specifically, we must determine whether Public Acts 1995, No. 95-277, § 3 (P.A. 95-277), codified at General Statutes § 31-349, extinguished the fund’s obligation to reimburse the city as of that date. We conclude that it did…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Turner v. TurnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- State v. MagnanoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Darak v. DarakSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Hall v. Gilbert & Bennett Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- State v. SpearsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- D'ERAMO v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- Wiseman v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- State v. EhlersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- Hasselt v. Lufthansa German AirlinesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
- Bergeson v. City of New LondonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.