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 Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3784

AC40899 - Dombrowski v. New Haven (Denial of motion to open parties' stipulation that settled claims; reviewability of claims not presented to commissioner; settlement contingent upon approval of the city; claim that opening the stipulation not warranted due to failure of offering any evidence of “fraud, misrepresentation, accident, or mistake”; "On appeal, the plaintiff raises a number of claims that, in essence, challenge the propriety of the board’s decision affirming the commissioner’s denial of his motion to open. We affirm the decision of the board.")


Workers' Compensation Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3561

AC41943 - McGinty v. Stamford Police Dept. ("The defendants, the Stamford Police Department (police department), and PMA Management Corporation of New England, the workers' compensation liability insurer for the police department, appeal from the decision of the Compensation Review Board (board) affirming the finding and award (award) of the Workers' Compensation Commissioner for the Seventh District (commissioner) with respect to the claim filed by the plaintiff, Thomas McGinty, under General Statutes § 7-433c, commonly referred to as the Heart and Hypertension Act. On appeal, the defendants principally claim that the board improperly affirmed the commissioner's award concluding that the plaintiff had suffered from compensable heart disease. Before the commissioner and on appeal, the defendants have argued that the plaintiff's condition, arterial sclerosis, is not a disease unique to the heart, but a systemic condition, and is, therefore, not compensable heart disease. We affirm the decision of the board.")



Workers' Compensation Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3544

AC41237 - Brocuglio v. Thompsonville Fire District #2 (Heart and Hypertension Act (sec. 7-433c); notice of claim (sec. 31-294c (a)) “The defendant claims that the board improperly affirmed the commissioner’s award because the plaintiff’s heart disease claim was not timely filed pursuant to General Statutes § 31-294c (a), and § 7-433c (a) does not allow a claimant to file more than one claim for heart disease. We conclude that because the plaintiff failed to file a claim in 2000 when he was first informed by a medical professional that he had heart disease, the claim he filed for heart disease in 2013 is jurisdictionally barred. We, therefore, reverse the decision of the board.”)


Workers' Compensation Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3528

AC39397 - Woodbury-Correa v. Reflexite Corp. (“On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the board (1) exceeded its authority by making new factual findings that contradict the findings made by the commissioner, and (2) erred in affirming the commissioner’s denial of the motion to preclude the defendant from contesting liability for the plaintiff’s repetitive trauma injuries. We agree with both claims and reverse the decision of the board... On February 24, 2014, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-294c (b), the plaintiff filed a motion to preclude the defendant from contesting liability for her repetitive trauma injuries. Nearly one year later, on January 5, 2015, the defendant filed a written objection to the plaintiff’s motion on the ground that it had filed a form 43 in a timely manner.”)


Workers' Compensation Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3520

AC41025- Rauser v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. ("The plaintiff claims that the board erred in affirming the commissioner’s decision in light of the fact that the commissioner failed to set forth a factual determination with respect to whether, at the time he sustained the injuries for which he sought benefits, he was on the direct route of his business travel. We affirm the decision of the board… Before this court, the plaintiff claims that the board erred in affirming the commissioner’s decision in light of the fact that the commissioner failed to make a factual determination with respect to whether, at the time he sustained the injuries for which he sought benefits, he was on the direct route of his business travel.")


Workers' Compensation Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3513

AC40399 - Vitti v. Milford (“The principal issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff’s claim for heart and hypertension benefits under General Statutes § 7-433c is governed by the version of the statute in effect on the date of the plaintiff’s hire or the date of his injury… On appeal, the defendant claims that the board erred, as a matter of law, by (1) applying to the plaintiff’s claim the version of § 7-433c that was in effect on the date of the plaintiff’s injury in 2010 (2010 version), rather than the version of § 7-433c that was in effect on the date of the plaintiff’s hire in 1993 (1993 version), and (2) affirming the commissioner’s finding that the plaintiff’s giant cell myocarditis qualifies as heart disease under § 7-433c. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the decision of the board.”)


Workers' Compensation Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3479

SC19937 - Brennan v. Waterbury (“In this appeal, we consider whether heart and hypertension benefits under General Statutes § 7-433c for permanent disability properly are paid to a deceased claimant’s estate if such benefits vested and were payable (‘‘matured’’) during the claimant’s lifetime but were not paid to the claimant before his death. In particular, we are asked to consider whether Morgan v. East Haven, 208 Conn. 576, 546 A.2d 243 (1988), and the legislative response to that decision, instead requires payment of such benefits to the claimant’s dependents or nondependent children.”)


Workers' Compensation Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3429

SC20004 - Gould v. Stamford (Single-member limited liability companies; concurrent employment of City of Stamford and Intervale; whether the plaintiff is " eligible for concurrent compensation benefits from the defendant Second Injury Fund (fund) pursuant to General Statutes § 31-310...The fund denied the claim for benefits on the ground that the plaintiff was not Intervale’s employee. The plaintiff sought review of this ruling by the Workers’ Compensation Commission (commission). After a hearing, the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner for the Seventh District (commissioner) determined that the plaintiff was not an employee of Intervale for purposes of the act and, therefore, did not qualify for compensation benefits based on his allegedly concurrent employment. The plaintiff appealed from the decision of the commissioner to the Compensation Review Board (board), which affirmed that decision. This appeal followed. We conclude that the plaintiff qualifies as Intervale’s employee for purposes of the act and, therefore, is eligible for concurrent employment benefits pursuant to § 31-3”)


Workers' Compensation Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3385

AC39154- Rivera v. Patient Care of Connecticut ("On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the board erred in affirming the commissioner’s ruling because the commissioner did not require the defendant to prove that she had a work capacity and improperly shifted the burden to her to prove that she did not have a work capacity. Because the commissioner limited his finding on the defendant’s form 36 to the issue of whether the plaintiff reached maximum medical improvement as to her partial disability to her right lower extremity, he did not need to address the issue of the plaintiff’s work capacity. Consequently, the record does not support the plaintiff’s contention that the commissioner improperly required her to prove that she lacked a work capacity. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the board.")


Workers' Compensation Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3375

AC38256 - Quinones v. R.W. Thompson Co. ("The plaintiff, Wilfredo Quinones, appeals from the decision of the Compensation Review Board (board) affirming the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commissioner for the Sixth District, Stephen B. Delaney, denying the plaintiff's motion to preclude the defendant, R. W. Thompson Co., Inc., from contesting the extent of the plaintiff's injury. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the board improperly (1) found there was no error when the commissioner rejected an alleged stipulation that the case be decided on the original record and (2) affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion to preclude despite the defendant's failure to file a form 43. We affirm the decision of the board.")


Workers' Compensation Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3188

AC39528 - Dahle v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. (Claim of plaintiff that she was entitled to temporary total disability benefits without a social security offset; “On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the board erred by: (1) not addressing past incorrect evidence, not finding her new evidence credible, and not addressing a statement from Commissioner Stephen B. Delaney about delayed medical care; and (2) denying her request for financial compensation without a social security offset pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 2003) § 31- 307 (e). We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the decision of the board.”)


Workers' Compensation Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3174

SC19990, SC19991- Filosi v. Electric Boat Corp. (“In this workers’ compensation appeal, we consider whether an employer is collaterally estopped from challenging an employee’s eligibility for benefits under the Connecticut Workers’ CompensationAct (state act), General Statutes § 31-275 et seq., because of an earlier decision by a United States Department of Labor administrative law judge (administrative law judge) awarding benefits to that employee under the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (Longshore Act), 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq. (2012). .. On appeal, the defendant claims that the board improperly determined that the administrative law judge’s decision to award benefits under the Longshore Act collaterally estopped it from challenging compensability because the federal forum employs a lower standard of causation than the substantial factor standard required by the state act and, therefore, that it should be allowed to litigate its claims under the higher state standard. Guided largely by our decision in Birnie v. Electric Boat Corp., 288 Conn. 392, 953 A.2d 28 (2008), we conclude that the board properly determined that the defendant is collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of causation under the state act because the record of the Longshore Act proceedings indicates that the administrative law judge employed the substantial factor standard that governs in the state forum. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the board.”)


Workers' Compensation Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3154

AC39993 - Diaz v. Dept. of Social Services ("On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the board improperly: (1) affirmed the commissioner’s finding and dismissal; (2) affirmed the commissioner’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to correct the finding; and (3) denied the plaintiff’s motion to submit additional evidence. We affirm the decision of the board… the plaintiff characterizes this evidence as ‘‘new evidence,’’ the documents that the plaintiff sought to submit as additional evidence were in existence in 2010, approximately four years before the formal hearing on her workers’ compensation claim commenced in 2014. In light of this, we conclude that the board reasonably could have concluded that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that she had good reason for not presenting such evidence to the commissioner. The board did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion to submit additional evidence.")


Workers' Compensation Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3105

SC19755 - Callaghan v. Car Parts International, LLC ("In this appeal from the Compensation Review Board, we consider the extent of an employer’s right to a credit against its obligation to pay workers’ compensation benefits for an injured employee when that employee has recovered damages from a third- party tortfeasor who caused the employee’s injuries. When an employee is injured in a work related accident, the Workers’ Compensation Act (act), General Statutes § 31-275 et seq., bars the employee from bringing an action for damages against the employer but, also, requires employers to pay certain benefits to the injured employee. These benefits can include covering the employee’s medical expenses or providing compensation for disabilities resulting from the injury. See General Statutes § 31-275 (4).")


Workers' Compensation Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3097

AC40535 - Barker v. All Roofs by Dominic (Workers' compensation; "The defendant, the city of Bridgeport (city),appeals from the decision of the Compensation Review Board (board) affirming the finding and order of the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner for the Third District (commissioner) holding that the city was the principal employer of the plaintiff Christopher Barker when he suffered a compensable injury while working for an uninsured subcontractor of the city on city property, and thus that the city was liable, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-291, for all workers’ compensation benefits3 due to him in connection with that injury. The city claims that the board erred in affirming the decision of the commissioner that the city was liable to the plaintiff as his principal employer because (1) § 31-291 does not apply to governmental entities and (2) even if § 31-291, in theory, can apply to a municipality, it does not impose principal employer liability on the city in this case because one fact essential to establishing such liability—that the work being performed by the plaintiff when he was injured was a part or process of the city’s trade or business—has not been satisfied. We affirm the decision of the board.")


Workers' Compensation Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3064

SC20005 - Williams v. New Haven ("In the present case, we are asked to determine whether our holding in Genovese, in which the plaintiff brought an action in the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 31-290a, applies equally when a plaintiff has opted to bring his claim pursuant to § 31-290a before the Workers’ Compensation Commission (commission). Specifically, we must determine whether the Compensation Review Board (review board) correctly determined that § 31-51bb permitted the plaintiff, Simon Williams, to file a claim with the commission alleging that the named defendant, the city of New Haven,1 had violated § 31-290a by wrongfully terminating his employment in retaliation for bringing a workers’ compensation claim, despite the fact that a related issue previously had been decided by the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration (state board) in an arbitration proceeding brought pursuant to the plaintiff’s collective bargaining agreement. We conclude that the review board correctly determined that, under § 31-51bb, the plaintiff’s claim brought before the commission pursuant to § 31-290a was not barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Accordingly, we affirm the review board’s decision.")

AC39673 - Mikucka v. St. Lucian's Residence, Inc. (“The plaintiff claims that (1) the commissioner, by not allowing her to present evidence to prove that she did not have a work capacity, violated her right to due process, and (2) the commissioner erred in determining that she was not totally disabled. We affirm the decision of the board and dismiss the appeal as to the second claim.”)


Workers' Compensation Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3018

AC39488- Clements v. Aramark Corp. ("The principal issue in this appeal is the compensability, under the Workers’ Compensation Act (act), General Statutes § 31-275 et seq., of an injury to an employee that occurred on an employer’s premises when the employee became lightheaded, fell, and hit her head while walking to her work station before the start of her shift... The plaintiff claims that the board erred in holding that, because the plaintiff’s fall was caused by her personal infirmity, rather than a workplace condition, her resultant head injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment within the meaning of the act. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the decision of the board.")


Employment Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3001

SC19817 - MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti ("The defendant, Stephen J. Leonetti, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury trial, in favor of the plaintiff, MacDermid, Inc., on its claim of unjust enrichment. On appeal, the defendant contends the following: (1) the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim is barred by collateral estoppel on the basis of the proceedings underlying our decision in Leonetti v. MacDermid, Inc., 310 Conn. 195, 76 A.3d 168 (2013); (2) the plaintiff’s recovery is precluded by General Statutes §§ 31-290 and 31-296 (a), the terms of a termination agreement (agreement) between the parties, and public policy; (3) the trial court’s jury instructions were improper; and (4) the trial court improperly excluded certain evidence. The plaintiff disagrees and claims that many of the defendant’s arguments are unpreserved, inadequately briefed, or both. We agree with the plaintiff. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Workers' Compensation Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2919

AC39373 - Melendez v. Fresh Start General Remodeling & Contracting, LLC (Workers’ compensation; claim that claimant was not regularly employed for over 26 hours per week; pro forma formal hearing; “The respondent claims that the board erred in concluding that (1) the claimant was an employee of the respondent and entitled to bring a claim against him individually under the Workers’ Compensation Act (act), General Statutes § 31-275 et seq., and (2) the respondent was afforded sufficient due process to hold him personally liable. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the decision of the board.”)


Workers' Compensation Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=1896

AC39009 - Frantzen v. Davenport Electric ("This case presents the issue of whether the Workers’ Compensation Commission (commission) has the statutory authority, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-327 (b),1 to decide fee disputes among attorneys who have represented a claimant at different times during the pendency of a case before the commission… On appeal, Vaccaro claims (1) that the commission does not have subject matter jurisdiction to resolve disputes regarding attorney’s fees between lawyers who serially represented a claimant and (2) that the commissioner and the board deprived Vaccaro of his constitutional right to have the attendant factual issues resolved by a jury. We disagree with Vaccaro’s claims and, accordingly, affirm the decision of the board.")


1 2