The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.
Workers' Compensation Law

Workers' Compensation Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=320

SC19682 - Staurovsky v. Milford Police Dept. (Workers' Comp; “On appeal, the plaintiff, who is a retired police officer who had been employed by the named defendant, the Milford Police Department, claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that he was not entitled to heart and hypertension benefits after suffering a myocardial infarction shortly after his retirement. Id., 208–209. Specifically, the plaintiff contends that the Appellate Court improperly followed its decision in Gorman v. Waterbury, 4 Conn. App. 226, 231–32, 493 A.2d 286 (1985), in determining that General Statutes (Rev. to 2011) § 7-433c required him to prove that his heart disease or hypertension caused him to suffer from death or disability while he was actively employed as a police officer.”)


Workers' Compensation Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=240

SC19584 - Balloli v. New Haven Police Dept. (Workers' Compensation; "place of abode"; General Statutes § 31-275 (1) (A) (i) of the Workers’ Compensation Act ; "The plaintiff appeals from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Review Board (board), which affirmed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner for the Third District (commissioner) dismissing the plaintiff’s claim. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that he is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits because he had departed his ‘place of abode’ for duty as a police officer. We agree with the plaintiff.")


Workers' Compensation Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=233

SC19626 - Graham v. Olson Wood Associates, Inc. (Workers' compensation; “In this appeal, we consider whether a Workers’ Compensation Commissioner may reinstate an employer or insurer as a party to proceedings pending on the asbestos docket of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (commission) when the claim against that party was dismissed prior to a determination of the claimant’s compensability or date of final exposure… We conclude that the commissioner properly reinstated the association as a party to the underlying proceedings because the commissioner’s broad case management authority under General Statutes § 31-298, which extends to cases on the asbestos docket involving the apportionment of liability under General Statutes § 31-299b, permitted him to render a dismissal that was provisional, rather than final, in nature. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the board.”)


Workers' Compensation Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=197

SC19631 - Holston v. New Haven Police Dept. (Workers' Compensation; "On appeal, the defendant asserts that the board improperly determined that the plaintiff’s heart disease claim was timely. Specifically, the defendant claims that the board improperly affirmed the decision of the commissioner that the plaintiff’s hypertension and heart disease were separate diseases, each with its own one year limitation period for filing a claim for benefits. We disagree with the defendant and, accordingly, affirm the decision of the board.")


Workers' Compensation Appellate Law Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=155

AC38261 - Jodlowski v. Stanley Works (Workers' compensation; "On appeal the plaintiff claims that it was improper for the commissioner (1) to deny his request for lumbar fusion surgery, (2) to fail to consider the conflicting opinions of medical experts, and (3) to decline to order a commissioner’s medical examination, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-294f (a). We affirm the decision of the board.")



Workers' Compensation Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=95

SC19465 - Estate of Rock v. University of Connecticut (Workers' compensation; "The threshold jurisdictional issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, Estate of James Rock, has standing under the Workers’ Compensation Act (act), General Statutes § 31-275 et seq., to seek benefits for temporary total disability and permanent partial disability, as well as reimbursement for, inter alia, medical expenses, when the deceased employee, James Rock (decedent), did not file a claim for benefits…The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1. On appeal, the plaintiff challenges the standing determination but not the commissioner’s denial of the motion to substitute the administrator of the decedent’s estate as the claimant and the request to change the case caption.")

AC37303 - Wiblyi v. McDonald’s Corp. (Workers' compensation; "We conclude that the board improperly remanded the matter with direction that the commissioner, essentially, reconsider his findings on the ground that there were 'ambiguities in the record . . . .’'")

AC37304 - Wiblyi v. McDonald’s Corp. (Workers' compensation; "The defendant McDonald’s Corporation appeals from the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Review Board (board) finding error in the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner (commissioner). On appeal, the defendant claims that the board improperly concluded, as a matter of law, that the equitable doctrine of laches was not available as a defense to the motion to preclude filed by the plaintiff, John M. Wiblyi, Jr. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the decision of the board.”)


Tort Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=51

SC19589 - Velecela v. All Habitat Services, LLC (Negligent infliction of bystander distress; "The plaintiff, Jenny Velecela, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendering summary judgment in favor of the defendant, All Habitat Services, LLC. The plaintiff contends that the trial court improperly concluded that her claim for bystander emotional distress was barred under General Statutes § 31-284 (a), the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act (act), General Statutes § 31-275 et seq. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court. ")


Workers' Compensation Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=45

SC19377- Gonzalez v. O. & G. Industries, Inc. (Worker's Compensation; paid compensation benefits; "On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly concluded that the defendant had ‘paid compensation benefits’ on the basis of an incorrect interpretation of that term as used in § 31-291. We agree with the plaintiffs’ claim that the trial court improperly interpreted the term ‘paid compensation benefits’ in § 31-291, but further conclude that, even under the proper construction of the statute, no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the defendant paid compensation benefits to Thompson and McVay. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


1