Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183

Section 4-183 permits judicial review only when a person is aggrieved by a final agency decision; an agency determination is not appealable as a contested case when no statute or regulation requires a hearing.

Ferguson Mechanical Co. v. Department of Public Works · filed 2007-06-26(a)

Accordingly, we conclude that, because the department was not under a statutory or regulatory mandate to conduct a hearing with respect to the plaintiffs allegations, there was no agency determination in a contested case.

Section 4-183(a) does not allow an appeal from a Department of Correction disciplinary hearing decision because such hearings are excluded from contested cases and therefore are not final decisions.

Townsend v. Hogan · filed 2009-07-14(a)

Because hearings conducted by the department are expressly excluded by the legislature from the class of contested cases under § 4-166 (2), they are not final decisions under § 4-183 (a).

Section 4-183(a) allows a person aggrieved by an agency’s declaratory ruling to appeal to the Superior Court after exhausting administrative remedies.

Sastrom v. Psychiatric Security Review Board · filed 2009-04-28(a)

It is clear from the language of § 4-183 (a) that, in general, persons who are aggrieved by a declaratory ruling of an agency may appeal that ruling to the Superior Court after exhausting their administrative remedies.

Section 4-183’s procedural requirements apply to review of a Medicaid audit decision even when the review lacks all the characteristics of a contested case.

Bridgeport Dental, LLC v. Commissioner of Social Services · filed 2016-05-24

Although the final decision of the review official does not have all the characteristics of a ‘‘contested case’’; General Statutes §§ 4-166 (4) and 4- 177 et seq.; the procedural requirements of General Statutes § 4-183 are applicable.

Section 4-183(a) permits an administrative appeal only after the claimant exhausts available remedies and obtains a final agency decision.

Walenski v. Connecticut State Employees Retirement Commission · filed 2018-10-16(a)

Accordingly, the plaintiff did not appeal to the Superior Court from an agency determination in a contested case because she did not possess a statutory or regulatory right to have the commission decide her rights or privileges in a hearing.

Section 4-183 does not provide an appeal from an agency's refusal to hold a hearing when that refusal is not a final decision in a contested case.

Preston v. Dss, No. 122029 (May 15, 2002) · filed 2002-05-15

That action was dismissed on the ground that the town has no right to an administrative appeal under § 4-183 because the refusal of DSS to hold a hearing is not a final decision in a contested case as defined in General Statutes § 4-166 . The court's ruling in that case defeats DSS's claim in the present case that the town's proper recourse is an administrative appeal pursuant to § 4-183 .

Section 4-183 does not authorize a court hearing an administrative appeal to enforce the agency's order through a counterclaim.

Beizer v. State of Conn. Dept. of Labor, No. Cv 97-0569653 S (Sep. 24, 1998) · filed 1998-09-24

Section 4-183 is the provision in the UAPA that grants the court jurisdiction to hear appeals from administrative agencies. ... Nothing in the UAPA gives the court the authority to grant the relief the defendant is seeking in his counterclaim.

Section 4-183(k) permits the court to direct an agency to provide relief after sustaining an administrative appeal.

Connecticut St. Emps. Assoc. v. State, No. Cv98-0492622 (Feb. 16, 1999) · filed 1999-02-16(k)

The plaintiff's appeal is sustained and the Board's decision is vacated. The Board is directed pursuant to § 4-183 (k) to order the Division to pay interest in accordance with this decision.

Section 4-183(j) prevents a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on the weight of factual evidence.

Patchell v. Conn. Employees' Review Board, No. Cv 98 0492693s (May 17, 1999) · filed 1999-05-17(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides: "The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact." The plaintiff did have an excellent record prior to the subject incident. However, the fact that the ERB determined that the plaintiff's past exemplary record did not offset the subsequent serious misconduct does not make ERB's conclusion that dismissal was warranted arbitrary.

Section 4-183(k) permits the court to direct an agency to order relief when it sustains an administrative appeal.

Local 749 v. State, No. Cv98-0492621 (Feb. 17, 1999) · filed 1999-02-17(k)

The plaintiffs' appeal is sustained and the Board's decision is vacated. The Board is directed pursuant to § 4-183 (k) to order the Division to pay interest in accordance with this decision.

Section 4-183(k) permits a court to direct an agency to dismiss the underlying complaint after vacating the agency’s decision.

Office of the Mun. Clerk v. Foic, No. Cv 00 050 06 45s (Apr. 3, 2001) · filed 2001-04-03(k)

Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (k), the agency is directed to dismiss the underlying FOIC complaint filed by Apter.

Section 4-183(k) permits specified relief in a UAPA administrative appeal, but that relief is unavailable when the case is not such an appeal.

Ruffin v. Department of Public Works · filed 2006-03-15(k)

Although the UAPA expressly waives sovereign immunity, allowing the court to “remand the case for further proceedings”; General Statutes § 4-183 (k); and “[order] the particular agency action, or [order] the agency to take such action as may be necessary to effect the particular agency action”; General Statutes § 4-183 (k); the present case is not such an appeal.

Section 4-183 allows a court to sustain an administrative appeal and grant appropriate relief when an agency decision exceeds the agency’s statutory authority.

Albini v. Connecticut Medical Examining Board · filed 2013-07-23(j), (k)

Because we have determined that part one of the revised order exceeded the board’s statutory authority, it follows that the court improperly dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal. Section 4-183 Q) provides in relevant part that a court may render a judgment under § 4-183 (k) or remand the case to the agency for further proceedings if the court found that the rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the agency’s decision is in excess of the statutory authority of the agency.

Section 4-183(j)(1) allows a reviewing court to decide a constitutional question without deferring to the agency’s legal conclusion.

State Library v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1998-09-22(j)(1)

The trial court, however, was not required to give deference to the agency’s decision with respect to this question of law. The trial court had every right to substitute its judgment for that of the agency in considering whether the contract clause applied and was, in fact, violated. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (1).

Section 4-183(j)(4) allows a court to correct an agency decision affected by an error of law.

State Dot v. Freedom of Info. Comm., No. Cv 01-0508810 S (Dec. 21, 2001) · filed 2001-12-21(j)(4)

This examination reveals that the commission did not comply with Rocque 's mandate to withhold disclosure of the harassment complainant's name. This error was one of law. See General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(4).

Section 4-183(j)(4) permits a court to reverse an agency decision that applies an incorrect legal standard and remand for a new decision.

West Hartford B.O.E. v. State of B.O.E., No. Cv 01 0510157s (Jun. 19, 2002) · filed 2002-06-19(j)(4)

The court thus finds that the hearing board used the incorrect legal standard in determining whether the Coelho children were actual residents of West Hartford, requiring the reversal of the hearing board's decision. General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(4); ... The court therefore sustains the appeal and remands it to the hearing CT Page 7910 board for a new decision based upon the standard set forth in this opinion and the facts of record.

Section 4-183(j) permits a party to raise a facial constitutional challenge to the underlying statute in an administrative appeal.

Rudy's Limousine Service, Inc. v. Department of Transportation · filed 2003-07-15(j)

We recognize that, unlike Stafford Higgins Industries, Inc., the present case involves an administrative appeal under § 4-183 (j) rather than a statutory appeal under § 12-119. ... We conclude, therefore, that the plaintiffs facial constitutional challenge to § 13b-103 (b) is properly before us.

Section 4-183 does not make UAPA administrative appeals civil actions or require liberal construction when strict compliance would cause injustice or surprise.

Nine State Street, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission · filed 2004-07-06

Unlike § 8-8 (p); see footnote 4 of this opinion; § 4-183 does not authorize administrative appeals under the UAPA to be considered civil actions. Furthermore, unlike § 8-8 (p), § 4-183 contains no requirement that the appeals brought thereunder are to be liberally construed in any case where a strict adherence to those rules would result in injustice or surprise.

Section 4-183(i) affords no additional process for a procedural bias claim already heard de novo under CEPA.

Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. Connecticut Siting Council · filed 2008-03-18(i)

Indeed, not only was he permitted to bring an identical claim under CEPA, but he also received what essentially constituted a hearing de novo on that claim. Allowing Honan to proceed under the UAPA could grant him no greater process or more deferential standard of review for this claim; see General Statutes § 4-183 (i); ... nor has he ... pointed us to any relief or benefit that our review of this claim could afford him.

Section 4-183’s standard of judicial review does not apply to appeals from orders of the claims commissioner.

State v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital · filed 2012-02-14

The strict scrutiny of an administrative decision that is authorized by § 4-183 and undertaken in Figueroa v. C & S Ball Bearing, 237 Conn. 1, 10-11, 675 A.2d 845 (1996), on which the hospital relies, is, therefore, not the appropriate standard of judicial review for an appeal from an order of the claims commissioner.

Section 4-183(j) governs judicial review of tenured teacher terminations through § 10-151(e), even though school boards are not otherwise subject to every UAPA provision.

Langello v. West Haven Board of Education · filed 2013-04-30(j)

Although the board is not subject to every provision within the UAPA, § 10-151 (e) specifically prescribes that termination pursuant to § 10-151 (d)must conform with § 4-183 Q).