Waterbury

The plaintiff police union sought to vacate an arbitration award in its favor issued in connection with the defendant city's alleged breach of a collec- tive bargaining agreement. Although the plaintiff had proposed a remedy for the violation of the agreement to include back pay and benefits, the arbitration panel did not include an award of damages. Initially, in a first memorandum of decision, the trial court determined that, although it could not vacate the arbitration award, the matter should be remanded to the arbitration panel for further proceedings because it appeared that the panel may have ignored important evidence in the record. Following a response and clarification from the panel, the trial court, in a second memorandum of decision, granted the plaintiff's motion to vacate the arbitration award, and the defendant appealed to this court. Held that the trial court erred by granting the plaintiff's motion to vacate the arbitration award: in light of the trial court's conclusions in its first memorandum of decision, that the conclusion of the panel to deny an award of damages was neither inconsistent with the plain language of the parties' agreement nor was it inconsistent with logic and reason to deny payment for work not performed, and its determination that the panel did not violate clear public policy to warrant vacating the arbitra- tion award, the panel's award was a mutual, final and definite award and there was no basis for the court to remand the matter for further consideration of the evidence or the legal questions involved; accord- ingly, the court should have denied the plaintiff's motion to vacate in light of the conclusions set forth in its first memorandum of decision. Argued April 14—officially released September 14, 2021

15 The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant city, sought to resolve a dispute 16 concerning a lien the city placed on certain settlement proceeds that 17 he had received as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred 18 in 2016. At all relevant times, the city was self-insured and paid for the 19 medical care that the plaintiff received in connection with the accident. 20 In July, 2017, the legislature passed an amendment (P.A. 17-165, § 1) to 21 a statute (§ 7-464) concerning group insurance benefits for municipal 22 employees that allowed a self-insured city that provides health benefits 23 for its employees to file a lien on the portion of any settlement proceeds 24 that represents payment for medical expenses incurred by a city 25 employee when such expenses result from the negligence or reckless- 26 ness of a third party. Later in July, 2017, the plaintiff filed an action 27 against the third-party tortfeasor who had caused the plaintiff to sustain 28 injuries in the accident. Thereafter, on October 1, 2017, P.A. 17-165, § 1, 29 became effective. In October, 2018, the city filed a notice of lien, claiming 30 a right to reimbursement for amounts that it had paid for the plaintiff's 31 medical expenses from any judgment or settlement the plaintiff might 32 receive arising from the accident. Approximately one week later, the 33 plaintiff settled his civil action against the third-party tortfeasor. The 34 plaintiff then brought the present action, claiming that P.A. 17-165, § 1, 35 did not authorize the lien filed by the city because the plaintiff's injuries 36 occurred and his action against the third-party tortfeasor was com- 37 menced before the effective date of P.A. 17-165, § 1. The trial court 38 granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and rendered judg- 39 ment thereon, concluding, inter alia, that the legislature did not expressly 40 indicate that it intended for P.A. 17-165, § 1, to apply retroactively to 41 pending actions and, there

The plaintiff mother and her minor child, T, an elementary school student, sought to recover damages from the defendant city of Waterbury and the defendant Waterbury Board of Education for injuries that T sustained when she was physically assaulted by two or more schoolchildren on a Waterbury public school playground during recess. The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the defendants and their employees failed to adequately supervise the schoolchildren, including T, both in and out of the classroom. The case was tried to the court, which found that T's injuries were the result of the defendants' failure to provide sufficient personnel to exercise proper control over the number of students on the playground at the time. There was evidence introduced at trial that the school had a student population of about 400 and that at least 2 paraprofessionals who attended the incident involving T ran from inside the building to address the situation. The defendants appealed to the Appellate Court from the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, claiming that the trial court improperly rejected the defendants' special defense of governmental immunity, incorrectly concluded that T's injuries were caused when an inadequate number of staff members were assigned to supervise up to 400 students when there was evidence that there were no more than 50 students on the playground at the time in question, improperly found, in the absence of expert testimony, that the number of assigned staff members was insufficient to control as many as 400 students, and improperly awarded certain damages. The Appellate Court concluded that, in the absence of expert testimony, the trial court could not properly have found that the defendants breached their duty of care to T on the basis that there was an allegedly inadequate number of adults on the playground to supervise the students. Accordingly, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case to that court with direction