Judiciary Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: HJ-68
RESOLUTION GRANTING THE CLAIMS COMMISSIONER AN EXTENSION OF
Title: TIME TO DISPOSE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS.
Vote Date: 4/8/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date: 3/26/2021
File No.: 584
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
The substitute language consolidated the claims of 29 claimants (30 claims) into one
resolution for efficiency and simplicity due to the volume of claim extensions.
REASONS FOR BILL:
This bill grants the Claims Commissioner an extension of one year from the final adoption of
this resolution by the General Assembly to dispose of the 29 claims against the state listed in
the bill.
SUBSTITUTE LANGUAGE:
The substitute language consolidated the claims of 29 claimants (30 claims) into one
resolution for efficiency and simplicity due to the volume of claim extensions.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
None stated.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
None stated.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder PC, Attorney, Alinor C. Sterling, Esq. opposes HJ 92 (Section 20 of
the substitute language) on behalf of client Bonni Bossi stating the procedural history of the
case which involves a medical malpractice claim related to a significant delay in the
commencement of cancer treatment. It is stated that the claim was filed three and a half
years ago, and no action has been taken. It is also stated that the delay of the claim may
deprive the client the opportunity to participate and asks that the claim to be permitted to
proceed in Superior Court.
Walsh Woodard LLC, Attorney, Michael J. Walsh opposes HJ 95 (Section 23 of the substitute
language on behalf of client Angela Britton stating the procedural history of the case which
involves serious injuries when the client hit concrete causing the client to crash into a
guardrail. It is stated that Connecticut Department of Transportation employees had thrown
the piece of concrete from a highway overpass bridge, intending for it to drop into a dump
truck but missed, resulting in the concrete bouncing into the clients lane. It is also stated that
the claim has had no action taken in three years and asks that the Committee deny the
Commissioners request for an extension and grant the client permission to sue.
Reported by: Peter B. Andrews Date: April 14, 2021
Page 2 of 2 HJ-68