 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kelly v. City of Bridgeport12/5/2000
The defendant, the city of Bridgeport (city), appeals from the decision of the compensation review board (board) affirming the workers' compensation commissioner's finding that the plaintiff, Gary B. Kelly, is entitled to benefits pursuant to General Statutes § 31-284b even though he is no longer receiving weekly disability benefits under General Statutes § 7-433c. We reverse the decision of the board.
The commissioner found the following facts. The plaintiff is a retired police officer who qualified for benefits pursuant to § 7-433c, commonly referred to as the Heart and Hypertension Act, after suffering a heart attack on March 6, 1991. He also received separate disability pension payments from the city for group health and medical coverage, which included dental and vision benefits, and life insurance for himself and his family. The city canceled the group coverage for the plaintiff and his family effective September 1, 1996, after learning that the plaintiff was no longer receiving indemnity benefits under § 7- 433c. The city, however, continued to pay benefits under the plaintiff's compensation claim, consisting of semiannual physician visits for his § 7-433c condition along with payments for drugs prescribed by his physician related to his compensable condition.
The plaintiff sought reinstatement of his dental, vision and life insurance coverage pursuant to § 31-284b. He claimed that as long as he received benefits under § 7-433c, he was entitled to dental and vision benefits, and life insurance at the city's expense. The city contended that the plaintiff no longer was entitled to those benefits under § 31- 284b because he no longer was receiving a weekly indemnity benefit intended to compensate him for disability, wage loss or lost earning capacity. The commissioner found that the plaintiff qualified for the dental, vision and life insurance coverage that was in effect in 1991, and ordered the city to reinstate such benefits. The board affirmed the commissioner's finding and award. The city now appeals.
As a threshold matter, we set forth the standard of review applicable to workers' compensation appeals. "The principles that govern our standard of review in workers' compensation appeals are well established. The conclusions drawn by [the commissioner] from the facts found must stand unless they result from an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally or unreasonably drawn from them. . . . Besade v. Interstate Security Services, 212 Conn. 441, 449, 562 A.2d 1086 (1989). . . . It is well established that lthough not dispositive, we accord great weight to the construction given to the workers' compensation statutes by the commissioner and review board. . . . A state agency is not entitled, however, to special deference when its determination of a question of law has not previously been subject to judicial scrutiny. . . . Duni v. United Technologies Corp., 239 Conn. 19, 24-25, 682 A.2d 99 (1996); Davis v. Norwich, 232 Conn. 311, 317, 654 A.2d 1221 (1995). Where . . . [a workers' compensation] appeal involves an issue of statutory construction that has not yet been subjected to judicial scrutiny, this court has plenary power to review the administrative decision." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Dowling v. Slotnik, 244 Conn. 781, 797-98, 712 A.2d 396, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1017, 119 S. Ct. 542, 142 L. Ed. 2d 451 (1998).
The interpretation of § 31-284b is a matter of statutory construction. "Statutory construction is a question of law and therefore our review is plenary. . . . ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature. . . . In
Page 1 2 3 4 Connecticut Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|