CRB Case Annotations re: Section 5-142(a)

CRB reversed trier’s award of full salary benefits to prison guard who was injured when he caught inmate as he slipped exiting shower. Claimant was not “restraining” inmate within meaning of statute, as he acted instinctively, and without the impression that inmate was attempting to behave in hostile manner that required the sort of “restraint” that is an especially hazardous component of prison guard’s duties.

CRB reversed trial commissioner’s conclusion that claimant’s injuries were a direct result of the special hazards inherent in his duties. Claimant, a supervisor at Whiting Forensic Institute, injured his ankle when he fell to the ground while playing volleyball with inmates and other staffers. Though it was reasonable to find that injury occurred during the course of the claimant’s “attending” duties, there was no evidence to show that the particular situation in which the claimant was injured was especially hazardous. History of P.A. 91-339 and circumstances of amendment’s adoption indicate that claimant must demonstrate a direct connection between the unusual threat posed by patients at the institute and the injury actually suffered.

CRB affirmed trier’s decision that claimant, who contracted tuberculosis in 1957 while she was working at Cedarcrest as part of her nursing school training and also earning wages for working hospital shifts, was entitled to COLAs under § 31-307a. The claimant did not specifically elect to be compensated under § 5-142(b) instead of the total disability section of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The respondent’s written acceptance of her condition as compensable, followed by its payment of $12.00 per week to her (the statutory minimum under the Act at the time of her injury) for the next several decades, is evidence that the case was accepted under the predecessor to § 31-307 instead of the predecessor to § 5-142. Also cited at Herbert, § 31-307a.

Cost of living adjustments pursuant to § 31-307a are not applicable to § 5-142(a) benefits. See also, Courtright, § 31-301-4, § 31-315.

Lessard v. State, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 212, 1753 CRB-5-93-6 (March 30, 1995).

“Full salary” under statute does not include everything included in “wages” and “earnings,” as discussed in Vecca v. State, 29 Conn. App. 559 (1992). Commissioner properly excluded daily meal allowance, police dog maintenance stipend, and clothing stipend under Vecca. Also, nothing prevented commissioner from inferring from stipulation that state police officer’s dog handler and resident trooper pay were not salary adjustments within statute.

Gray v. State/Fairfield Hills Hospital, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 279, 1476 CRB-4-92-8 (June 7, 1994).

Trier found claimant, a rehabilitation therapist, sustained an injury which occurred while “restraining” a mentally retarded patient. Claimant’s injury was a direct result of the special hazards inherent in such duties and therefore claimant was entitled to full pay provisions under the Act. See, Lucarelli v. State, 16 Conn. App. 65 (1988).

Masi v. State/Dept. of Revenue Services, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 231, 1342 CRD-6-91-11 (November 8, 1993).

Claimant, a special police officer, denied § 5-142(a) benefits as his injury was sustained in a motor vehicle accident while driving to perform an inspection. Injury did not occur while in the actual performance of the inspection. See, Stuart v. Dept. of Correction, 221 Conn. 41 (1992).

Gillette v. State/J.B. Gates Correctional Unit, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 69, 1145 CRD-2-90-11 (March 26, 1992), vacated and reissued (July 8, 1992).

Trier found claimant, who was on his way to lunch when he slipped and fell sustaining a compensable injury was not entitled to § 5-142(a) full pay benefits as claimant was not in the actual performance of his guard duties at the time of his injury. See, Stuart v. Dept. of Correction, 221 Conn. 41 (1992). See also, Gillette, § 31-315 and § 31-296.

Vecca v. State/Whiting Forensic Institute, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 280, 1123 CRD-8-90-10 (December 16, 1991), aff’d, 29 Conn. App. 559 (1992).

CRD reversed trier’s finding which awarded claimant overtime pay, shift differential and maintenance allowance sums in computing full salary under provisions of § 5-142(a). See, Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. State/Mansfield Training School, 220 Conn. 721 (1992) and Trinkley v. State/Ella Grasso Regional Center, 220 Conn. 739 (1992) where court held state employees have a choice whether to collect benefits under § 5-142(a) or Chapter 568.

Stuart v. State/Dept. of Correction, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 81, 932 CRD-2-89-10 (February 26, 1991), rev’d, 221 Conn. 41 (1992).

CRD relied on Lucarelli v. State, 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 58, 262 CRD-4-83 (April 27, 1987), aff’d, 16 Conn. App. 65 (1988), finding claimant, a food service supervisor, was entitled to full pay. Supreme Court held claimant was not in the actual performance of guard duties at the time of injury.

Trinkley v. State/Ella Grasso Regional Center, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 58, 924 CRD-5-89-10 (February 6, 1991), rev’d, 220 Conn. 739 (1992).

CRD reversed trial commissioner and held that state employee eligible for benefits pursuant to § 5-142(a) was not entitled to concurrent employment benefits pursuant to § 31-310. Supreme Court reversed CRD and held a claimant who is eligible to receive benefits pursuant to § 5-142(a) may elect to have benefits calculated under § 31-310 which allows for concurrent employment. See also, Trinkley, § 31-301. Appeal procedure. See, Benoit v. State/Norwich State Hospital, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 58, 920 CRD-2-89-9 (February 6, 1991), infra.

Benoit v. State/Norwich State Hospital, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 58, 920 CRD-2-89-9 (February 6, 1991).

State employee receiving full salary benefits under § 5-142(a) is not entitled to concurrent employment benefits pursuant to § 31-310. See also, Benoit, § 31-310. N.B. See, Trinkley, supra.

Jones v. State/Mansfield Training School, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 53, 986 CRD-2-90-2 (February 4, 1991), rev’d, 220 Conn. 721 (1992).

CRD reversed trial commissioner’s conclusion claimant could choose to elect benefits pursuant to § 31-307 rather than § 5-142(a). Supreme Court reversed CRB holding that § 5-142(a) is designed to enhance benefits. § 5-142(a) is not an exclusive remedy. Employee can pursue benefits under an alternate statute to allow a greater recovery. Also the word “shall” as used in § 5-142(a) is directory rather than mandatory. Dissenting opinion argue that language in § 5-142(a) is clear, “shall” is “shall”. But see, Palmer v. State, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 53, 900 CRD-4-89-7 (February 4, 1991), infra.

Palmer v. State/Fairfield Hills, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 53, 900 CRD-4-89-7 (February 4, 1991).

Overtime earnings by state employees are not part of the full salary provisions in § 5-142(a), therefore overtime should not be considered when calculating benefits. See also, Palmer, § 31-307.

DiBenedetto v. State/University of Connecticut Health Center, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 1, 862 CRD-6-89-5 (January 3, 1991).

In order to receive full pay for first five years, compensability needs to be established by proof that the injury arose out of the performance of duties. See also, DiBenedetto, § 5-145a.

Minotti v. State, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 165, 611 CRD-2-87 (June 2, 1989).

See, Minotti, § 31-296.

Harper v. State, 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 113, 319 CRD-1-84 (October 15, 1987).

Claimant not entitled to full pay where injuries sustained did not occur while attending or restraining an inmate.

Lucarelli v. State, 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 58, 262 CRD-4-83 (April 27, 1987), no error, 16 Conn. App. 65 (1988).

To secure benefit of full pay under statute claimant needs only to show injury was sustained in the performance of guard duties.

Estabrook v. State, 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 79, 310 CRD-2-84 (November 5, 1986).

Claimant entitled to full pay benefits where employment status changed to full time.

Claimant who works for state agency which treats persons afflicted with mental defects entitled to full pay even though agency is not in the Department of Mental Health.

Heckman v. State, 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 79, 57 CRD-6-81 (December 8, 1981).

Employee of alcoholic treatment center entitled to full pay.

Lockwood v. State, 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 57, 32 CRD-4-80 (September 17, 1981).

CRB Case Annotations re: Section 5-142(a)

Disability compensation state employees (full pay).