General
Henry O. Briggs v. State Employees Retirement Commission
18 Conn. App. 817·Connecticut Appellate Court·1989·CT
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Henry O. Briggs v. State Employees Retirement Commission
(5570)
Dupont, C. J., Borden and O’Connell, Js.
Submitted on briefs April 25
decision released May 15, 1989
Peter F. Culver filed a brief for the appellant (plaintiff).
Richard T. Sponzo, assistant attorney general, ClarineNardi Riddle, acting attorney general, Joseph I. Lieberman, former attorney general, and Robert E. Walsh and Brian J. Comerford, assistant attorneys general, filed a brief for the appellee (defendant).
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
This case is here on remand from our Supreme Court; Briggs v. State Employees Retirement Commission, 210 Conn. 214, 554 A.2d 292 (1989); which found error in our earlier decision on the plaintiff’s appeal. See Briggs v. State Employees Retirement Commission, 13 Conn. App. 477, 538 A.2d 225 (1988). In accordance with that remand, we now consider “the plaintiff’s evidentiary claim that he had established a permanent orthopedic disability, [and] his legal claim that the defendant had employed an erroneous legal standard. Briggs v. State Employees Retirement Commission, 13 Conn. App. 477, 480 and nn. 4, 6, 538 A.2d 225 (1988).” Briggs v. State Employees Retirement Commission, supra, 216 n.4. We find no error.
Review of the record discloses substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that the plaintiff had not established a permanent orthopedic disability. With regard to the second claim, we agree with the trial court that the board was aware of and applied the proper statutory standard in evaluating the plaintiff’s application for disability retirement benefits.
There is no error.