 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gillette v. Town of Monroe12/28/1999
ad possible future compensatory ramifications.
"In 1951, the General Assembly enacted a statute providing that any impairment of health caused by hypertension or heart disease resulting in the total or partial disability of a uniformed member of a paid municipal fire department who successfully passed a physical examination on entry into such service shall be presumed to have been suffered in the line of duty. Sup. 1951 § 175b. The rebuttable presumption afforded to firemen was, in 1953, made applicable to regular members of paid, municipal police departments; Sup. 1953 § 308c; and, in 1955, was applied to situations where death, as well as disability, results. Sup. 1955 § 407d. This provision, which was repealed and reenacted in 1961 as General Statutes § 7-433a; Public Acts 1961, No. 330, §§ 1, 2; was amended by the legislature in 1967 making it explicit that the statute applies whether the condition occurs while the policeman or fireman is on duty or off duty at the time. Public Acts 1967, No. 770, § 1." Plainville v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 178 Conn. 664, 667-68, 425 A.2d 131 (1979). Similar to § 7-433c, § 7-433a provided compensation to those whose physical "examination failed to reveal evidence of" hypertension or heart disease. Public Acts 1961, No. 61-330, § 1. Because the plaintiff's preemployment physical examination took place in 1965, when § 7-433a was in force, the town's police surgeon had the same incentive to give, and the town had the same duty to ensure, a thorough examination and production of a thorough report thereof with any findings relative to the plaintiff's condition regarding heart disease and hypertension, as they would have had if § 7-433c had been in force. Furthermore, the fact that Williams wore multiple hats in this case certainly cannot serve to obviate his responsibilities to perform a thorough examination and to document comprehensive relevant findings.
For the reasons stated, the board improperly affirmed the commissioner's denial of the plaintiff's application for benefits related to his heart disease on the ground that the preemployment physical examination revealed evidence of heart disease. Accordingly, the rationale of Suprenant v. New Britain, supra, 28 Conn. App. 759, cannot bar the plaintiff's claim with respect to hypertension.
II.
In their brief, the defendants urge two alternate grounds for affirming the commissioner's denial of the plaintiff's claims. The defendants argue that (1) the claim for heart disease benefits is time barred pursuant to General Statutes § 31-294c and (2) because the plaintiff's preemployment physical examination revealed evidence of heart disease, the plaintiff cannot recover benefits for either hypertension or heart disease. We are not persuaded.
A.
The defendants first claim that the denial of that portion of the plaintiff's claim seeking benefits for heart disease can be affirmed because it is time barred pursuant to § 31-294c. We disagree.
Because the plaintiff's preemployment physical examination revealed no evidence of heart disease and because he was entitled to rely on the clean bill of health assigned to him in the 1965 report, we cannot say that, subsequent to his hiring, he was under any duty to file a claim for heart disease benefits any sooner than when the condition was first detected. The finding and dismissal by the trial commissioner indicates that the plaintiff was diagnosed with aortic valve problems and congestive heart failure in April, 1994. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for heart disease benefits, filed less than one year later, in February, 1995, was timely under § 31-294c. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for heart disease
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Connecticut Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|