Opinion
(14443)
Argued December 16, 1996
Officially released January 14, 1997
Appeal from the decision by the employment security board of review reversing the appeals referee's determination that the plaintiff was entitled to unemployment compensation benefits, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Waterbury and tried to the court, Pellegrino, J.; judgment sustaining the plaintiff's appeal, from which the defendant appealed to this court; thereafter, this court granted the employment security board of review's motion to intervene as a defendant. Reversed; judgment directed.
Thomas P. Clifford III, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Charles A. Overend, assistant attorney general, for the appellant (defendant).
Lynne M. Knox, for the intervenor-appellant (employment security board of review).
M. Leonard Caine III, for the appellee (plaintiff).
The defendant administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act appeals from the judgment of the trial court reversing the decision of the security appeals division board of review (board) denying the plaintiff unemployment compensation benefits. The plaintiff, Joan M. Chavez, was initially found eligible for unemployment benefits by the administrator. An appeals referee affirmed the administrator's finding after conducting a trial de novo. The employer subsequently appealed the decision to the board. The board reversed the referee's decision and, in doing so, eliminated some of the referee's findings of fact and made its own additional factual findings. The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court from the board's decision. After hearing, the trial court reversed the decision of the board and remanded the matter for further proceedings. In its memorandum of decision, the trial court found that the board improperly substituted its judgment for that of the referee on credibility issues without taking additional evidence or testimony.
This case is controlled by Calnan v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 43 Conn. App. 779, ___ A.2d ___ (1996). In Calnan, we reversed the trial court and held that in order for a plaintiff to challenge the findings of the board of review properly on appeal, the plaintiff must file a motion to correct those findings. Id., 785. As in Calnan, the plaintiff in this case did not move to correct the findings of the board before appealing to the trial court.
At oral argument, the plaintiff conceded that Calnan was controlling.