DocketNumber: No. CV 93 034 23 81
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 2141
Judges: MALONEY, J.
Filed Date: 3/14/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The sole issue to be resolved in this case is whether the plaintiff wilfully failed to participate in required workfare during the weeks ending October 10, 1992 and October 17, 1992.
The hearing officer designated by the commissioner conducted two hearings, on January 13, 1994 and May 18, 1994, in accordance with the court's decision and order. At those hearings, the letter from the Light House Park manager was admitted in evidence. Numerous witnesses also testified, including the plaintiff, the workfare supervisor, and Mr. Sumers, the author of the letter.
Following the hearings, the hearing officer rendered two decisions. In both decisions, the hearing officer noted that the crucial point was the credibility of the various witnesses, most particularly the credibility of the plaintiff. The hearing officer found that the testimony of the plaintiff concerning his attendance at work on the days in question was not credible.
A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court's review of an agency's decision is very limited. General Statutes §
In deciding appeals of decisions of the commissioner of income maintenance and hearing officers designated by the commissioner, the court must adhere to the rule of "substantial evidence." This means that "If the administrative record provides substantial evidence upon which the hearing officer could reasonably have based his finding . . . the decision must be upheld."Conn. Building Wrecking Co. v. Carrothers,
In the present case, the hearing officer had ample substantial evidence, both documents and testimony, to support the finding that the plaintiff wilfully failed to work the required number of hours during the weeks in question. Although the plaintiff's testimony would tend to support his claim for benefits, the hearing officer, as the factfinder, was legally entitled to give less credit and weight to the plaintiff s testimony than to the other evidence in the record. For all of these reasons, the court may not overturn the decision of the hearing officer.
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
MALONEY, J.