Connecticut House Bill HJ00136

Connecticut 2016 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/4/16
• Refer: 3/4/16
• Report Pass: 3/30/16
• Refer: 4/8/16
• Report Pass: 4/14/16
• Report Pass: 4/22/16

Caption

Resolution Vacating The Decision Of The Claims Commissioner To Dismiss The Claim Against The State Of Derrick J. Taylor And Remanding The Claim To The Claims Commissioner For A Hearing On The Merits.

Impact

The adoption of HJ00136 will reinstate Derrick J. Taylor's claim that exceeds twenty thousand dollars, allowing for a comprehensive review by the Claims Commissioner. This action reflects the General Assembly's commitment to ensuring that claims against the state are handled fairly and justly, particularly in cases where initial assessments may have led to dismissals without adequate hearings. The resolution could set a precedent for how claims of a similar nature are treated in the future.

Summary

House Joint Resolution No. 136 (HJ00136) is a legislative resolution aimed at vacating a prior decision made by the Claims Commissioner regarding the claim of Derrick J. Taylor against the state. The resolution specifically remands the claim back to the commissioner for a hearing on the merits, indicating that the claim has not been resolved and deserves further consideration. It underscores the intention to provide the claimant an opportunity for a fair hearing, thereby aligning with principles of due process.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HJ00136 appears to be supportive, with the belief that the legislative body is acting in the interest of justice by affirming the right of individuals to have their claims heard thoroughly. There is an understanding that resolving such claims fairly promotes public trust in governmental processes. However, there may also be underlying tensions concerning the state’s liability implications and the responsible use of taxpayers' resources in addressing claims.

Contention

While HJ00136 facilitates a hearing on Derrick J. Taylor's claim, it opens discussions regarding the state’s liability and the potential financial ramifications of upholding claims against it. There may be concerns around the precedent it sets, especially if larger claims are similarly remanded for hearings, possibly affecting the state's budget and operational capacity. Stakeholders may have differing views on the balance between individual rights and state resources, which could lead to debates during legislative sessions.