1991 Formal Opinions
Page 2 of 3
-
This is in reply to your September 17, 1991 letter, renewing your earlier request for an opinion on August 9, 1991. In that letter, you asked "whether the Governor may act, through executive order, to appropriate and expend state monies by authorizing the continuation of government operations."
-
This is in response to your request for advice regarding treatment rendered by emergency medical personnel. As we understand it, there have been a number of instances recently where it has come to the attention of the Office of Emergency Medical Services within the Department of Health Services that emergency medical personnel1 have rendered treatment in circumstances not limited to their employment by a licensed ambulance company or as volunteers of a certified ambulance company.
-
In your letter of July 30, 1991, you asked our opinion on the following issue: In those situations where a registered nurse has determined and pronounced the death of a patient pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes, § 20-101a, do the statutes require a licensed physician to view and examine the body when preparing the medical certification potion of the death certificate?
-
You have asked our opinion concerning the State's authority to continue payment for state services if a State budget is not enacted by June 14, 1991.
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion on the impact of the repeal of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-42, which directed the refund of liquor permit fees under certain circumstances, on pending requests for such liquor permits rebates.
-
Chief State's Attorney Richard Palmer, 1991-038 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
On August 21 and 24, 1990 then Chief State's Attorney John J. Kelly requested an opinion of this office concerning the calculation of longevity benefits for State's Attorney Robert C. Satti.
-
We are in receipt of your letter dated January 2, 1991, wherein you request our opinion on two issues concerning a gun range located on the grounds of the Enfield Community Correctional Institution. The property in question is owned by the State of Connecticut.
-
We are writing in response to your letter dated January 9, 1991, in which you request our advice about the constitutionality of the residency requirement contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10a-77(d)(2), a statute concerning tuition waives for eligible veterans.
-
This is in response to your request for opinion wherein you raise the following issues: In response to a recommendation contained in the most recent report of the Auditors of Public Accounts on the University of Connecticut Health Center, we are examining available options relative to the Health Center's Academic Enhancement Fund.
-
We are in receipt of a letter dated August 28, 1989, from Major John M. Watson wherein our opinion is sought concerning numerous compensation issues relating to highway constriction projects.
-
In your letter, dated February 5, 1991, you requested our opinion concerning whether there are any limitations on a licensed professional engineer's authority to design buildings. You have noted the overlap of practices between architecture and professional engineering2 with regard to design of buildings and have asked us to review this matter.
-
This is in response to your request for advice regarding access to nursing home facilities by patient advocates and ombudsmen. You have asked the following questions: 1. Does an Ombudsman/Patient Advocate have access to a facility to visit, observe conditions and operation only in response to a specific complaint? 2. Must an Ombudsman/Patient Advocate notify the administration or staff of the reason for their presence? 3. Can a facility require that a schedule including date and time of visits be posted with the intent of limiting access? 4. May a facility announce the presence of the Ombudsman/Patient Advocate over the PA system? 5. Can the facility require that a staff person accompany the Ombudsman/Patient Advocate? 6. Can the facility refuse to send an Accident and Incident or A500 report to the Ombudsman Office?
-
This is in response to a request by former Commissioner Heslin for an opinion of the Attorney General concerning whether a board or commission member who is disqualified from acting and voting on a particular matter because of a conflict of interest, may, for the purposes of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-7(6), be counted in determining if a quorum of such board or commission is present to legally act.
-
The issue in this request for opinion is whether the Connecticut General Assembly can, by repealing the authorization for charitable Las Vegas Nights in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-186a et seq., eliminate the right of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe (Tribe) to conduct a casino on its reservation in Ledyard.
-
This will acknowledge your request of April 18, 1991 for a formal opinion concerning an interpretation of Section 20-334a of the Connecticut General Statues.