LOUIS MARTINOLI v. CITY OF STAMFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT et al., SC 20932

Compensation Review Board

 Workers' Compensation; Whether Claimant Is Entitled to Temporary Total Disability Benefits under General Statutes § 31-307 (a) Where His Status Commenced When He Was Retired and Had No Intention of Returning to Workforce.  The claimant began his employment with the respondent police department in 1975.  In January 1999, the claimant established a compensable claim for coronary artery disease, hypertension, and congestive heart failure pursuant to General Statutes     § 7-433c.  In October 1999, the claimant retired at the age of sixty-four with no intention of returning to the workforce.  On July 15, 2015, when the claimant was eighty years old, he developed atrial fibrillation and sustained a stroke, which the Workers' Compensation Commissioner concluded was compensable as it flowed from the underlying accepted claim.  The claimant thereafter applied for temporary total disability benefits under General Statutes § 31-307 (a).  The statute provides that an employee "shall be paid" temporary total disability benefits if the employee sustains a compensable "injury . . . that results in total incapacity to work."  The commissioner approved the claim and determined that the respondent shall provide the claimant with temporary total disability benefits under § 31-207 (a), commencing retroactively to July 15, 2015.  The respondent appealed to the Compensation Review Board, claiming that the commissioner erred in determining that the claimant was entitled to § 31-307 (a) benefits where his temporary total disability status commenced after he retired with no intention to reenter the workforce.  The board disagreed with the respondent and affirmed the commissioner's decision, finding that a reasonable interpretation of the precedent governing eligibility for § 31-307 (a) benefits is that once a claimant proves that he is medically incapable of performing work, his willingness to obtain employment is irrelevant.  The respondent appealed from the board's decision to the Appellate Court (220 Conn. App. 874).  The Appellate Court noted that, in Cochran v. Dept. of Transportation, 220 Conn. App. 855 (2023), which was released the same day, it held that, under the plain and unambiguous language of § 31-307 (a), a claimant who retires without any intention of returning to the workforce and does not return to the workforce is not entitled to temporary total disability benefits because it cannot be said that the claimant's injury resulted in a total incapacity to work as required by the statute.  The Appellate Court then held in the present case that, for the reasons set forth in Cochran, the claimant was not entitled to temporary total disability benefits under § 31-307 (a) and, accordingly, reversed the board's decision.  The claimant filed a petition for certification to appeal, which the Supreme Court granted as to the question of whether the Appellate Court correctly determined that the claimant was not eligible for temporary total disability benefits pursuant to General Statutes § 31-307 (a).