McNulty v. City of Stamford

657 A.2d 1126, 37 Conn. App. 835, 1995 Conn. App. LEXIS 250
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedMay 16, 1995
Docket13290
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 657 A.2d 1126 (McNulty v. City of Stamford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McNulty v. City of Stamford, 657 A.2d 1126, 37 Conn. App. 835, 1995 Conn. App. LEXIS 250 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

Lavery, J.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the second injury fund is hable to municipalities for payment under the heart and hypertension statute, General Statutes § 7-433c, in the same manner as it is liable for workers’ compensation claims. The compensation review board (board) answered in the affirmative. We disagree.

The pertinent facts are as follows. On June 29,1977, Edward McNulty (decedent), then a member of the [837]*837police department of the city of Stamford, was found to be suffering from heart disease compensable under the provisions of General Statutes § 7-433c. He sustained a 20 percent permanent partial disability to his heart, entitling him to a specific award of 195 weeks of compensation at his basic weekly compensation rate of $135.

The decedent died on February 4,1991, from cardiac arrest due to arteriosclerotic heart disease, leaving a widow and dependent child. During his lifetime, the decedent received no temporary total or temporary partial disability benefits. He did receive the specific award of 195 weeks of compensation for the 20 percent permanent partial impairment to his heart and twenty-five weeks of compensation for permanent and significant scarring from surgery required for treatment of his compensable heart disease.

On April 12,1991, the decedent’s estate and the city of Stamford stipulated to a finding and an award that was approved by the commissioner. The award provided for “four thousand dollars for funeral expenses, dependent spouse benefits until remarriage or death and benefits for the dependent child until he reaches 18 or as otherwise provided under § 31-306.”

On October 29,1991, pursuant to a motion to modify the finding and the award, the commissioner found that the plaintiff was entitled to cost of living adjustments, to come into effect on and after October 1, 1991, to be paid by the employer and reimbursed from the second injury fund, that the plaintiff was to reimburse the employer for its payment to her of the $4000 funeral expense, and that the waiting period provided in General Statutes (Rev. to 1977) § 31-306 (i) was applicable. This finding meant that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation until the expiration of 220 weeks, representing the number of weeks of benefits received by the decedent during his lifetime.

[838]*838On appeal, the board held that the plaintiff was entitled to cost of living adjustments from the date of injury to be paid by the city of Stamford, and reimbursed by the fund. Also, pursuant to the then newly enacted Public Acts 1992, No. 92-31, the plaintiff was found to be entitled to a $4000 funeral expense payment and compensation benefits retroactive to the date of death, notwithstanding any offset period, to be paid by the municipal employer and reimbursed by the fond. The fund appeals this decision on the sole issue of reimbursement to the employer.

The history of the second injury fund; see Civardi v. Norwich, 231 Conn. 287, 649 A.2d 523 (1994); and of the heart and hypertension law; see Morgan v. East Haven, 208 Conn. 576, 546 A.2d 243 (1988); has been set forth on many occasions by our Supreme Court and does not require repetition.

“Payment of an award from a special fund such as the second injury and compensation assurance fund, which was established, inter alia, to assist in the payment of compensation awarded to handicapped and disadvantaged workers; General Statutes §§ 31-349 [through] 31-355; see Everett v. Ingraham, 150 Conn. 153, 158, 186 A.2d 798 [1962]; should be made only in accordance with express statutory authority; 101 C.J.S., Workmen’s Compensation, § 837 [1958]; in order to protect that special fund and prevent unwarranted diversions of it from the specific purpose for which it was created.” Going v. Cromwell Fire District, 159 Conn. 53, 61, 267 A.2d 428 (1970). The absence of any such express statutory authority therefore undermines the claim that the fund must assume liability.

One purpose of amendments to the heart and hypertension law, according to our Supreme Court, is to avoid prior constitutional difficulties. The legislature [839]*839did not include the benefits available under § 7-433c as compensation under the workers’ compensation scheme, chapter 568. Rather, the current provision is separate and distinct from chapter 568. Bakelaar v. West Haven, 193 Conn. 59, 67, 475 A.2d 283 (1984). It provides “an outright bonus” to those police and fire personnel who qualify and, thus, is not a taking of property without due process of law. Grover v. Manchester, 168 Conn. 84, 88, 357 A.2d 922, appeal dismissed, 423 U.S. 805, 96 S. Ct. 14, 46 L. Ed. 2d 26 (1975). Chapter 568 is used only as a “procedural avenue” for administration of the benefits under § 7-433c so that a duplicate procedure did not have to be created. Bakelaar v. West Haven, supra, 68, citing Plainville v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 178 Conn. 664, 671-72, 425 A.2d 131 (1979); see Morgan v. East Haven, supra, 208 Conn. 581.

General Statutes § 31-3451 specifies the situations in which the fund will be liable and does not include reim[840]*840bursements for payments made pursuant to § 7-433c. The legislature’s use of words to itemize the situations that bring a statute into play connotes the legislative intent to exclude that which is not included. Stuart v. Dept. of Correction, 221 Conn. 41, 601 A.2d 539 (1992); State v. Kish, 186 Conn. 757, 765, 443 A.2d 1274 (1982). The fund was created, not to serve the purposes found in § 7-433, but to serve those in the Workers’ Compensation Act, General Statutes § 31-354 et seq.

[841]*841Section 7-433c makes no reference to the fund. It begins with a declaration of its legislative purpose and is immediately followed by a clear, unambiguous description of who is to provide the specific benefits. It also clearly states who is to benefit from it. Section 7-433c (a) provides as follows: “In recognition of the peculiar problems of uniformed members of paid fire departments and regular members of paid police departments, and in recognition of the unusual risks attendant upon these occupations, including an unusually high degree of susceptibility to heart disease and hypertension . . . municipal employers shall provide compensation as follows: Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 568 ... in the event a uniformed member

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bergeson v. City of New London
850 A.2d 184 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2004)
Salmeri v. Department of Public Safety
798 A.2d 481 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2002)
In Re Gilbert C., (Jan. 2, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 11 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
King v. Sultar
754 A.2d 782 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2000)
Taravella v. Stanley
727 A.2d 727 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1999)
King v. Sultar, No. Cv 98-0487328s (Nov. 11, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 13727 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Deniro v. City of Bridgeport, No. Cv96 033 61 01 S (Oct. 28, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 12408 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Piorkowski v. Federal Express Corporation, No. 405352 (Feb. 6, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 1706 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
657 A.2d 1126, 37 Conn. App. 835, 1995 Conn. App. LEXIS 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnulty-v-city-of-stamford-connappct-1995.