 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
SUPRENANT v. NEW BRITAIN8/25/1992
n of his argument is that the preemployment evidence of his hypertension precludes him from receiving benefits under 7-433c only for hypertension during the course of his employment.
The sole question, which is dispositive of this appeal, is whether a member of a paid fire or police department whose preemployment physical reveals evidence
of hypertension, but not heart disease, may receive benefits for disability or death caused by subsequently discovered heart disease. We answer the question in the negative.
We review the review division's construction of 7-433c in light of well established rules of statutory construction. "`A fundamental tenet of statutory construction is that "statutes are to be considered to give effect to the apparent intention of the lawmaking body."' Verrastro v. Sivertsen, 188 Conn. 213, 220, 448 A.2d 1344 (1982). When the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, we assume that the words themselves express the legislature's intent and there is no need to look further for interpretive guidance. Caltabiano v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 211 Conn. 662, 666, 560 A.2d 975 (1989)." Winchester Woods Associates v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 219 Conn. 303, 309-310, 592 A.2d 953 (1991).
In Horkheimer v. Stratford, 4 Conn. Worker's Comp. Rev. Op. 139 (1987), the compensation review division aptly stated that " n order for claimant to come within the group for which the protection provided in 7-433c is intended, certain requirements must be met: (1) the claimant must be a uniformed member of a paid municipal fire department . . . (2) whose preemployment physical examination revealed no evidence of hypertension or heart disease; (3) who suffers a condition or impairment of health caused by hypertension or heart disease; (4) resulting in death or temporary or permanent total or partial disability; and (5) economic loss resulting therefrom." (Emphasis added.) Id., 141. In Horkheimer, the review division further stated that "7-433c is clear and unambiguous that the physical examination on entry into service must fail `to reveal any evidence of hypertension or heart disease . . . .' That means the physical examination must
reveal no evidence of hypertension or heart disease in order for the claimant to be eligible for the application of 7-433c." Id., 143.
"We afford great deference to the construction by the review division that is in charge of the enforcement of the compensation act." Hansen v. Gordon, 221 Conn. 29, 36, 602 A.2d 560 (1992). Not only do we afford great deference to the construction by the review division, but our own independent analysis leads us to the same conclusion.
" e are mindful of the principles underlying Connecticut practice in [workers'] compensation cases: that the legislation is remedial in nature; Kennerson v. Thames Towboat Co., 89 Conn. 367, 375, 94 A. 372 (1915); and that it should be broadly construed to accomplish its humanitarian purpose." Dubois v. General Dynamics Corporation, 222 Conn. 62, 67, 607 A.2d 431 (1992). We, however, find no lack of clarity or ambiguity in the statute. A plain reading of 7-433c requires us to hold that in order to be eligible for any benefits for either hypertension or heart disease under 7-433c, the plaintiff must have "successfully passed a physical examination on entry into [employment as a member of a paid municipal fire or police department], which examination failed to reveal any evidence of [either] hypertension or heart disease . . . ."
The decision of the compensation review division of the worker's compensation commission is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
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.
|
|