The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Search Results
Page 186 of 214
-
You have requested our advice on several questions related to 1992 Conn. Public Act 92-158, An Act Concerning Extending Continuation Benefits to the Unemployed (hereinafter "Public Act 92-158"). Public Act 92-158 amended Conn. Gen. Stat. e 38a-538, which requires employers to offer employees whose employment has terminated for reasons other than death the option to purchase continued health insurance coverage under the employer's group health plan at the same group rate. Public Act 92-158 extended the time period for such continuation coverage from 78 weeks to 104 weeks.
-
In your letter of February 11, 1993, you ask whether the State of Connecticut, as a creditor, is disabled from being the assignee of a Connecticut lottery winner because of a regulation which prohibits any assignment of lottery funds.
-
This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1992 in which you relate that the State Employees' Retirement Commission's Subcommittee on Purchase of Service and Related Matters has requested an opinion from this office on the entitlement of Tier I hazardous duty members to obtain retirement credit for a leave of absence for service in the armed forces during peacetime, pursuant to the Veterans' Reemployment Rights Act.
-
You have asked our opinion on several matters pertaining to the extent of the authority of the Municipal Police Training Council (MPTC) to impose mandatory training requirements upon those persons empowered by statute to act in the capacity of a police officer.
-
This is in response to your letter of August 3, 1993 concerning the Health Care Cost Containment Committee (HCCCC) and U.S. Healthcare. Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 5-259, you have the statutory obligation to establish group hospitalization, medical and surgical insurance coverage for state employees, retirees and others, and are authorized to enter into contracts for that purpose.
-
This is in response to your memorandum dated September 22, 1993 wherein you request our opinion on whether the members of the Connecticut Pilot Commission ("Commission") have a right to defense by the State of Connecticut and indemnification should the exercise of their duties as Commission members result in litigation against them in their official or individual capacities.
-
Hon. John B. Larson, President Pro Tempore, 1993-007 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
By letter dated March 5, 1993, you have asked our office for a formal opinion as to whether Gwen B. Weltman, Esq. of Bethany, who has been nominated by Governor Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. as a public member of the Commission on Hospitals and Health Care ("the Commission") qualifies as such pursuant to Conn.Gen.Stat. § 19a-146. Specifically, you question whether Attorney Weltman's previous employment as a social worker by Yale-New Haven Hospital between April 1980 and July 1983 violates § 19a-146's mandate that a public member "shall not ... have any past professional affiliation with any health care facility or institution...."
-
In your letter of March 26, l993, you requested our opinion concerning perceived conflicts between the requirements of proposed House Bill 7114, "An Act to Assist Connecticut Communities Seeking Economic Stability" (the "Act"), and Article Tenth, Section 1 of the Connecticut Constitution which preserves home rule for Connecticut municipalities.
-
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has asked for an opinion analyzing the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (the Act) 42 U.S.C. § 5101 and regulations issued under that Act in relation to state law, particularly Conn. Gen. Stat. § l9a-570 et seq. Specifically, HHS questions whether Connecticut law meets the requirement imposed by the federal statutory mandates regarding critically-ill children.
-
This will respond to your request for advice regarding how the Second Injury Fund should proceed on the administration of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 31-284b, 31-349(e) and (f) in light of the United States Supreme Court's recent ruling in District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Board of Trade, _U.S._, 113 S. Ct. 580 (1992) (hereinafter referred to as Board of Trade).
-
You have requested an opinion as to whether proposed legislation regulating hospitals' net revenues, imposing taxes related to the provision of hospital services, and appropriating funds for Medicaid disproportionate share payments to hospitals is likely to be preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") because the amended statutes may "relate to" ERISA plans.
-
This will respond to your request for advice concerning State funding for the purchase, by the Town of East Haven, of property of the Colony Beach Club. Specifically, you inquire as to whether the use of State funds for such a purchase would make the facility available for use by all Connecticut residents.
-
By letter dated July 6, 1994, your office made an inquiry pertaining to 15 of 1994 Conn. Pub. Act No. 94-6 of the May Special Session (hereinafter the "1994 Act"). The July 6, 1994 letter phrased the question as follows: Subsequent to your legal opinion of May 24, 1994, the General Assembly passed Public Act 94-6(15), copy enclosed, which provides for a definition of 'Free Standing Chronic Disease Hospitals' applicable retroactively to the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1993. As a result of this amendment, we respectfully request a formal opinion on the impact this revision has in relationship to the grand list year and fiscal year Free Standing Chronic Disease Hospitals payments should commence.
-
By letter dated April 27, 1994, you have asked for the opinion of this Office as to whether the Governor had the authority to bind the State to the Gaming Compact between the State of Connecticut and the Mohegan Tribe of Indians pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) Pub.L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 or whether the Gaming Compact must also be submitted to the General Assembly for its approval.
-
We have received an inquiry from each of you relating to persons currently serving as justice of the peace. We first answer the Secretary's question and then that raised by the Speaker. 1. In a May 24, 1994, letter from Secretary Kezer, the Secretary inquires as to the validity of legislation providing for the extension of terms of current justices of the peace in light of Judge Dorsey's ruling in ACP v. Kezer, 2:92CV00550 (PCD) prohibiting holdover-terms after June 30, 1994. We answer that the legislation extending these terms is valid. 2. In an August 1, 1994, letter from Speaker Ritter, the Speaker asks whether "it is proper to fill vacancies which now exist" in the office of justice of the peace.