Connecticut General Assembly
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
September 30, 1997 97-R-1058
TO:
FROM: Judith Lohman, Principal Analyst
RE: Workers' Compensation Decisions
You asked for brief summaries of selected workers' compensation decisions issued in 1997.
SUMMARY
The cases summarized in this report were issued by the Compensation Review Board (CRB), the highest level of administrative appeal within the Workers' Compensation Commission, and by the state Appellate and Supreme courts. In one way or another, they all concern how far the worker's compensation law's coverage extends. In some cases, the injured employee sought coverage and in others he sought to be excluded from coverage so he could file a regular lawsuit for damages.
ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE COVERED
The CRB ruled that an illegal alien could collect workers' compensation benefits. The case concerned a Brazilian native employed as a live-in housekeeper and nanny, who slipped on her employer's icy driveway while walking with the family dog to the mailbox. Her employer argued that she was ineligible for workers' compensation because she was an illegal alien. The CRB ruled unanimously that the workers' compensation law's coverage is not limited to workers who are U.S. citizens or are legally employed. "An employer would be placed in a highly advantageous position if it were able to avoid workers' compensation liability simply by hiring illegal aliens and then raising their citizenship status as a defense whenever an injury occurred," the board said (Dowling v. Slotnik & Reverand, 3 Conn. Ops. 235 (February 24, 1997)).
SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT
Claim Disallowed Because the Injury Occurred After Termination
The CRB ruled that a worker injured while leaving the employer's premises after being fired could not claim workers' compensation benefits because he was no longer in the course of employment. In this case, after being fired, the claimant stopped on his way out to pick up his personal toolbox, which had been packed by a company foreman and placed on a company loading dock. The claimant said he hurt his back while lifting the toolbox off the loading dock.
The decision depended on prior rulings disallowing claims for mental stress arising from terminations and on the fact that, in 1993, the General Assembly expressly removed emotional impairments caused by personnel actions from workers' compensation coverage. According to the board, "[t]his case may not be directly controlled by that statute, but the legislative policy favoring a narrower construction of the scope of employment period is evident from the amendment." (Herman v. Sherwood Industries, Inc., 3 Conn. Ops. 595 (May 26, 1997)).
Employee Covered When Injured While on Unpaid Lunch Break
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that a worker injured during an unpaid lunch period may make a workers' compensation claim. In this case, the injury occurred when the claimant, a bus mechanic, fell down the steps of an out-of-service bus after eating his lunch there. Although the employer provided a lunchroom, the claimant and his co-workers often ate on out-of-service buses parked in the yard, a practice their employer knew about.
The Court found that the claimant satisfied two of three tests for determining whether an injury occurs in the course of employment. The claimant was in the period of his employment because, though technically "off the clock" and eating lunch, he was still on the employer's premises. Furthermore, the Court had previously held that a temporary suspension of work for a permitted rest or meal is not enough to break the continuity of employment. In addition, the employee's activity was in furtherance of his employer's business or incidental to it. The Court had previously held that eating lunch and other personal acts are incidental to employment. And eating lunch furthers the employer's interests indirectly by enhancing the worker's job performance (Mazzone v. Connecticut Transit Co., 240 Conn. 788 (May 13, 1997)).
EXCLUSIVE REMEDY EXCEPTIONS
The benefits provided by the Workers' Compensation Act are the exclusive remedy for employees injured on the job. They cannot sue their employers or fellow employees for causing such injuries, unless the circumstances meet very narrow exceptions. The following cases concern those exceptions.
Intentional Bad Faith by Insurer
A Superior Court judge ruled that an injured employee could sue his employer's workers' compensation insurer for its alleged intentional bad faith in processing his claim. The case concerned a claimant who was hurt when he slipped on ice while walking from his service van to his employer's office. He contended that the employer's workers' compensation insurer unreasonably contested his claim, delayed benefit payments, and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him by repeatedly delaying and cutting off his benefits (Hornyak v. Northbrook Property, No. 2 Conn. Ops. 8 18 (July 28, 1998)).
Employer's Reckless Conduct
The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that employees may sue employers for job-related injuries if the employer (l) intended to cause the employee's injury or (2) engaged in willful or serious misconduct. Two Superior Court rulings reinforce the narrowness of this exception.
In one case, the injury occurred when an employee was required to climb into an excavation site that was inadequately sloped and without safety precautions required by the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The trench collapsed pinning the worker's leg against a water main. The judge ruled that the employer's conduct, though reckless and serious, did not create a substantial certainty of injuring a particular worker and thus was not willful or intentional (Motion for summary judgment granted, Mario Pac, et.al. v. Mastrobattisto, Inc. et.al. 19 Conn. L. Rptr. No 6, 211 (June 9, 1997)).
In the other case, a worker was required to lubricate a concrete sand screw machine two or three times a day while it was running. The machine had no protective guards. The worker's hand was drawn into the moving gears and he lost three fingers. The judge disallowed the worker's lawsuit on the grounds that, although the employer's conduct made it highly probable that an injury would occur, it was not designed to cause an injury (Motion for summary judgment granted, Shpak v. Beard, 3 Conn. Ops. 884 (August 11, 1997)).
Dual Capacity
Some states allow employees to sue employers when the employer serves the employee in a second capacity that gives rise to independent obligations. Connecticut courts have not recognized this so-called "dual capacity" doctrine, a pattern that was continued in two Superior Court rulings.
In one, the judge barred an employee from suing his employer as manufacturer of a product that caused the employee's on-the-job injury (Mason v. Olivetti-North America, Inc., 19 Conn. L. Rptr. No.14 (August 4, 1997), 489). In the other, the judge disallowed a lawsuit against the city of Danbury as an owner of land on which its employee was electrocuted on the job (Caron v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 3 Conn. Ops. 645 (June 3, 1997)).
BENEFITS FOR HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES
The CRB ruled that an employer's obligation to pay for "medical aid" for an injured employee does not include paying for housekeeping services unrelated to home nursing or medical care. The case concerned a claimant with a compensable 30% permanent back disability who could not vacuum or perform any other housework that required her to bend forward. Her doctor prescribed household cleaning help for her as "reasonable and necessary medical treatment." The claimant asked the employer to reimburse her for the cost of hiring a housekeeper once a week. The board found that requiring an employer to pay for such services under the rubric of medical aid "simply goes too far afield from what we believe the legislature actually contemplated" when it drafted the requirement (Cormier v. The Macke Co., 3 Conn. Ops. 985 (September 8, 1997)).
FILING DEADLINE FOR REPETITIVE TRAUMA INJURY
The law requires a claim for workers' compensation to be filed within one year of the accident date or three years of the first manifestation of a symptom of an occupational disease. The Workers' Compensation Commission and the courts have ruled that the one-year deadline applies to injuries caused by repetitive trauma. In a recent case, the Appellate Court upheld the CRB's ruling that the one-year period for filing a claim for a repetitive trauma injury runs from the date of the claimant's last exposure to the trauma and not from the date the claimant first learns of the injury.
The case concerned a worker who suffered a hearing loss. He worked in a factory powerhouse and air conditioning facility and was exposed daily to loud equipment from 1971 to his retirement on March 11, 1990. On January 5, 1993, the worker learned that he had a hearing loss and that it might be work-related. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits on January 14, 1993. Although the workers' compensation commissioner allowed the claim, he was overruled by the CRB in a decision later upheld by the Appellate Court. The court ruled against the claim because it was not filed within one year of the worker's last exposure to the trauma, March 11, 1990. The court found that the one-year statute of limitations applies regardless of when a worker learns of his injury or of a causal relationship between it and his work (Dorsey v. United Technologies Corp., 45 Conn. App. 707 (July, 1997)).
JSL:tjo