Opinion · Connecticut Appellate Court Opinions

STITZER v. RINALDI'S RESTAURANT, 209 Conn. 808 (1988)

548 A.2d 443

Type
Opinion
Court
Connecticut Appellate Court Opinions
Jurisdiction
Connecticut
Date
1988-01-01
Topic
general

STITZER v. RINALDI'S RESTAURANT, 209 Conn. 808 (1988) 548 A.2d 443 MARY STITZER v. RINALDI'S RESTAURANT ET AL.Supreme Court of Connecticut The defendants' petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 15 Conn. App. 356, is granted, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court err in concluding that the plaintiff's scars were compensable as resulting from `spinal injury' under Connecticut General Statutes Section 31-308 (d) of the Workers' Compensation Act?" Jason M. Dodge, in support of the petition.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed STITZER v. RINALDI'S RESTAURANT, 209 Conn. 808 (1988). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

STITZER v. RINALDI'S RESTAURANT,209 Conn. 808(1988)
548 A.2d 443
MARY STITZERv.RINALDI'S RESTAURANT ET AL.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
The defendants' petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court,15 Conn. App. 356, is granted, limited to the following issue:

"Did the Appellate Court err in concluding that the plaintiff's scars were compensable as resulting from `spinal injury' under Connecticut General Statutes Section31-308(d) of the Workers' Compensation Act?"

Jason M. Dodge, in support of the petition.
Decided September 20, 1988
Page 809