operations” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)). This court has ruled that the POMS provisions are entitled to “substantial deference, and will not be disturbed as long as they are reasonable and consistent with the statute.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We will decline to defer to the POMS only where “the plain language of the statute and its implementing regulation do not permit the construction contained within [them].” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). With these principles in mind, we consider DSS’s argument that, as a matter of state law, the Predecessor Trusts constitute “support trusts,” which Connecticut recognizes as resources available to the beneficiary. See Corcoran v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 271 Conn. 679, 699-700, 859 A.2d 538, 545 (2004) (<HOLDING>), In support, DSS points to language in the
holding that a right to damages is substantive and governed by state law in a diversity action because the remedy is inseparably connected with the right of action internal quotation marks omitted holding that creditors of a trust beneficiary were prohibited from intervening in an action involving a dispute between the trustee and a beneficiary concerning distribution of the trust corpus holding that state officials cannot have been expected to predict the future course of constitutional law internal quotation marks omitted holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted holding that beneficiary of general support trust has a legal right to compel distribution of funds internal quotation marks omitted