DocketNumber: No. CV 00 0504534S
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 5786
Judges: WIESE, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 5/1/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The plaintiffs have commenced this administrative appeal through their petition for appeal dated September 22, 2000 filed in the Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain. The defendant, through pleading dated December 4, 2000, transmitted a portion of the administrative record to the court. The defendant noted in the transmittal that "[t]he transcript of the administrative hearing in this matter is unavailable due to a recording malfunction." (Defendant's December 4, 2000 Transmittal of Administrative Record).
General Statutes §
In the present matter, the plaintiffs were denied DMR programs and services. The defendant in this appeal has not challenged aggrievement. This court finds that the plaintiffs are aggrieved. CT Page 5788
B. Timeliness of Appeal
General Statutes §
Judicial review of an administrative agency decision requires a court to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the agency's findings of basic fact and whether the conclusions drawn from those facts are reasonable. . . . [T]he trial court may [not] retry the case or substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the weight of the evidence or questions of fact . . . Our ultimate duty is to determine, in view of all of the evidence, whether the agency, in issuing its order, acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion. . . . The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes §
4-183 (j)(5) and (6). An administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue CT Page 5789 can be reasonably inferred. . . . The substantial evidence rule imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of weight of the evidence or clearly erroneous action. . . . [S]ubstantial evidence . . . is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence. . . .
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) CadlerockProperties v. Commissioner, supra,
"The determination of whether substantial evidence exists is subject to de novo review by this court." Labenski v. Goldberg,
Judicial review of the conclusions of law reached administratively is also limited. The court's ultimate duty is only to decide whether, in light of the evidence, the [agency] has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion. . . . Although the interpretation of statutes is ultimately a question of law . . . it is well established practice of this court to accord great deference to the construction given [a] statute by the agency charged with its enforcement. . . . Conclusions of law reached by the administrative agency must stand if the court determines that they resulted from a correct application of the law to the facts found and could reasonably and logically follow from such facts.
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) CadlerockProperties v. Commissioner, supra,
The plaintiffs contend in pertinent part that "there was a lack of substantial evidence on the record certified to the court to support the defendant's final decision." (Plaintiffs' January 4, 2001 Brief, p. 12.) General Statutes §
Absent the entire record of the administrative proceeding, it is impossible for the court to determine if there is sufficient evidence to support the agency's finding of fact and conclusions of law. "The court must make its decision on the propriety of the agency action by a review of the record. General Statutes §
The court finds that substantial rights of the plaintiffs have been prejudiced because the administrative procedure does not comply with the law. The appeal is sustained, and judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. Pursuant to General Statutes §
BY THE COURT
PETER EMMETT WIESE, JUDGE