DocketNumber: No. CV 95 046 54 99
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 4074-YY, 17 Conn. L. Rptr. 66
Judges: MALONEY, J.
Filed Date: 5/2/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The board held a hearing on the complaint of Donald R. Ross that the plaintiff engaged in malpractice and I overcharging in the course of repairing Ross's fresh water deep well system. Following the hearing and a report by the designated hearing officer, the board rendered its final decision. The board found that the plaintiff was guilty of malpractice in performing repairs, that he was guilty of unethical conduct in charging for materials, and that he was guilty of violating the law requiring the display of his license number. The board imposed a civil fine for each of the violations and issued a reprimand. CT Page 4074-ZZ
The plaintiff asserts a number of grounds as the bases of his appeal. One of them is dispositive.
The plaintiff retained an expert to assist in his defense against the complaint and to testify in his behalf at the hearing. Prior to the hearing, the plain tiff requested that his expert be permitted to inspect the premises where the repairs had been made. Ross refused permission, and the plaintiff's expert was never able to inspect the repairs that were the subject of the complaint. Furthermore, no one from the board ever inspected the repairs. The plaintiff claims he was unfairly denied the right to present relevant and material evidence at the hearing. The court agrees. CT Page 4075
"Hearings before administrative agencies, . . . although informal and conducted without regard to the strict rules of evidence, must be conducted so as not to violate the fundamental rules of natural justice." (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Huck v. Inland Wetlands Watercourses Agency,
Although the board was arguably not at fault, the fact remains that the plaintiff was denied the opportunity to present crucial evidence on the charge of malpractice. Since the board then found the plaintiff guilty and fined and reprimanded him on that charge, the denial clearly resulted in substantial prejudice to him. For that reason, the board's decision cannot be affirmed. See General Statutes §
The appeal is sustained. Pursuant to General Statutes §