Case Name: EDDIE C. TOSADO v. ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT, ET AL.
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 2011-07-19
Citations: 130 Conn. App. 278
Docket Number: AC 32401
Parties: EDDIE C. TOSADO v. ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT, ET AL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Appellate Reports
Volume: 130
Pages: 278–280

Head Matter:
EDDIE C. TOSADO v. ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT, ET AL.
(AC 32401)
Lavine, Robinson and Lavery, Js.
Argued April 21
officially released July 19, 2011
Krista Dolson O’Brien, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, former attorney general, and Philip M. Schulz, assistant attorney general, for the appellant (named defendant).
Eddie C. Tosado, pro se, the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion:
Opinion
ROBINSON, J.
The named defendant, the administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court sustaining the appeal by the plaintiff, Eddie C. Tosado, from the determination of the employment security board of review (board) denying the plaintiff unemployment compensation benefits. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly determined that the board's factual findings did not support the board's conclusion that the pla.iutiff was discharged for wilful misconduct. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.
In the related case of Tosado v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 130 Conn. App. 266 22 A.3d 675 (2011), we addressed the claim of error raised by the present appeal. We adopt the reasoning and conclusion of that opinion to resolve the present appeal.
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment for the defendant.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
We note that the defendant, The Wellpoint Companies, Inc., filed a separate appeal from the judgment of the trial court. See Tosado v. Administartor, Unemployment Compensation Act, 130 Conn. App. 266, 22 A.3d 675 (2011). We refer to the administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act as the defendant in this opinion.