DocketNumber: No. CV96 05 48 20
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 4800, 21 Conn. L. Rptr. 560
Judges: THOMPSON, J.
Filed Date: 4/1/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The plaintiff had sent notice to the VNA regarding the institution of the action, which notice was dated June 27, 1996 and received by it on July 1, 1996. Such notice was in compliance with the requirements of §
On February 23, 1998, this court granted VNA's motion to reargue based upon the Supreme Court decision in Worsham v.Greifenberger,
The plaintiff has now filed a motion to reargue the Court's February 23, 1998 decision allowing VNA to intervene in this action. Each party has briefed the substantive issues involved. Accordingly, the court will grant the motion to reargue and again rule upon whether VNA should be allowed to intervene.
Essentially, the plaintiff claims that the court's decision on June 17, 1997 was a final judgment, subject to appeal and thus the court should not have reversed that decision. It is the position of the plaintiff that the Worsham decision should not be applied retroactively in this case.
This court disagrees with the plaintiff. The plaintiff argues in her brief against retroactivity. However, the cases cited appear to deal with statutory enactments rather than judicial decisions dealing with existing statutes. Judgments which are not by their terms limited to prospective application CT Page 4802 are presumed to apply retroactively to pending cases. State v.Ryerson,
It is true, as the plaintiff points our that the court's decision in denying the motion of VNA to intervene was a final judgment for the purposes of an appeal. However, there are instances in which a decision may be final for appeal purposes but not be final for purposes of res judicata. Marone v. City ofWaterbury,
The notice sent by the plaintiff, dated June 27, 1996 does not comply with the requirements set forth in the Worsham decision. Thus to date, if Worsham is to be applied retroactively, there has been no notice to VNA which would being the running of the 30-day period within which it must move to intervene.
The court disagrees with the plaintiff's claim that Worsham
did not hold that §
In the court's view, fairness and justice require thatWorsham be applied retroactively to this case and that VNA be permitted to intervene. To hold otherwise would result in a situation where the intervening plaintiff would be deprived of a property interest by virtue of a notice provision which has now been held to be unconstitutional. Additionally, the plaintiff would be the beneficiary of a double recovery in the amount of the benefits paid which are represented to be $95,485.71.
Accordingly, while the plaintiff's motion to reargue is granted, the court's ruling granting VNA's motion to intervene remains the same.
THOMPSON, J.