 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
CARRIERO v. BOROUGH OF NAUGATUCK12/17/1996
The defendant borough of Naugatuck appeals from the decision by the compensation review board (board) affirming the decision of the workers' compensation commissioner. Naugatuck claims that the board incorrectly determined that the "cap" established by General Statutes § 7-433b (b), which limits the amount of heart and hypertension benefits a retired municipal police officer may receive under General Statutes § 7-433c, does not apply to pension benefits for years of service as provided in a union contract with the municipality.
The commissioner found the following facts. The plaintiff is a retired Naugatuck police officer. In January, 1991, in
accordance with its contract with the police union, Naugatuck awarded the plaintiff a pension based solely on his thirty years of service with its police department. This pension was unrelated to his hypertension claim under § 7-433c, and his disability was not an issue or a consideration in Naugatuck's decision to grant the pension.
The commissioner further found that on March 1, 1991, the plaintiff was awarded permanent partial disability benefits because of a 42.5 percent disability of his heart. These disability benefits were awarded pursuant to § 7-433c.
The commissioner held that the statutory cap of § 7-433b (b) did not apply in the present case because the plaintiff's pension was not being paid under § 7-433c but rather was a retirement pension based on years of service. Naugatuck appealed to the board, which affirmed the commissioner's decision. Naugatuck now appeals the board's decision to this court.
The question before us is whether a pension that was not given under the heart and hypertension statute, § 7-433c, is affected by the limitation of § 7-433b (b). We conclude that it is not affected and, therefore, we affirm the board's decision.
"Under the provisions of § 7-433c, qualifying members are entitled to receive (1) a retirement allowance from the municipal or state retirement system in an amount equal to what they would receive for disability that arose out of and in the course of employment, and (2) compensation and medical care from the municipal employer in the same amount and in the same manner as provided for under the workers' compensation law." Lundgren v. Stratford, 12 Conn. App. 138, 144, 530 A.2d 183, cert. denied, 205 Conn. 808, 532 A.2d 76 (1987). Historically, the total of those two benefits could exceed the amount a police officer would
have received if he were still working. 20 H.R. Proc., Pt. 5, 1977 Sess., p. 1817; 20 H.R. Proc., Pt. 14, 1977 Sess., p. 6049. In 1977, however, the legislature enacted Public Acts 1977, No. 77-520, § 2, now General Statutes § 7-433b (b), which placed a 100 percent ceiling or cap on the total payments that could be received under § 7-433c. Lambert v. City of Bridgeport, 204 Conn. 563, 569, 529 A.2d 184 (1987). No longer could anyone receive a disability pension and hypertension benefits exceeding 100 percent of an active police officer's pay.
Naugatuck argues that all retirement benefits and pensions are included in the limitation of § 7-433b (b), not only those paid under § 7-433c. The plaintiff argues that if the legislature had intended to include within the § 7-433b (b) cap retirement benefits other than disability benefits payable under § 7-433c, it could have easily drafted § 7-433b (b) to read, "compensation under 7-433c and all retirement or survivors benefits shall be adjusted . . . ." "` hen the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, we need look no further than the words themselves because we assume that the language expresses the legislature's intent.'" Lawson v. Whitey's Frame
Page 1 2 3 Connecticut Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|