State of Connecticut Workers' Compensation Commission, John A. Mastropietro, Chairman
Home News RSS News QUICK Find Index Search E-Mail
General Information Glossary Law CRB Opinions Workers' Compensation Commission Downloadable Forms and Publications Links

Koehler v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney

CASE NO. 1399 CRB-1-92-3

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

SEPTEMBER 16, 1994

SANDRA KOEHLER

CLAIMANT-APPELLEE

v.

UTC/PRATT & WHITNEY

EMPLOYER

and

CIGNA INSURANCE

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS

and

SECOND INJURY FUND

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

APPEARANCES:

The claimant did not appear before the Compensation Review Board. At the trial level, she was represented by Nancy Lee Waters, Union Representative, 357 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06108.

The respondents were represented by Anne Kelly Zovas, Esq., Stephen G. Ekern, Esq. and James L. Pomeranz, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton & Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Boulevard, Glastonbury, CT 06033-4412.

The Second Injury Fund was represented by Loida John-Nicholson, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120.

This Petition for Review from the March 20, 1992 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner for the First District was heard January 22, 1993 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of Commissioners John A. Arcudi, Donald H. Doyle, Jr. and Roberta S. D’Oyen.

OPINION

JOHN A. ARCUDI, COMMISSIONER. At issue here is the employer’s request to transfer liability to the Second Injury Fund after 104 weeks of benefits. The First District denied the request holding that the respondent employer and its insurer, CIGNA Insurance, had not complied with General Statutes (Rev. to 1987) Sec. 31-349(a)1 as they did not timely file with the Fund a fully executed and approved Voluntary Agreement.

This case seems on all fours with Santos v. F.D. Rich Construction Company, 1358 CRD-7-91-12 (February 2, 1994). There this tribunal rejected respondents’ claim. A respondent to transfer liability must complete all Sec. 31-349 procedural requirements within the time limit of the statute.

Here, for claimant’s October 12, 1987 left shoulder injury, the compliance date would have been July 12, 1989. Respondents filed an executed approved Voluntary Agreement with the Fund July 25, 1989, and it was received July 28, too late for compliance. See Plesz v. United Technologies Corporation, 174 Conn. 181 (1978); Kramer v. General Electric Co., 37 Conn. Sup. 742 (1981).

We, therefore, affirm the trial commissioner and deny the appeal.

Commissioners Donald H. Doyle, Jr. and Roberta S. D’Oyen concur.

1 General Statutes (Rev. to 1987) Sec. 31-349(a) provides in pertinent part: “The employer by whom the employee is employed at the time of the [second] injury, or his insurance carrier shall in the first instance pay all awards of compensation and all medical expenses provided by this chapter for the first one hundred four weeks of disability. As a condition precedent to the liability of the second injury fund, the employer or his insurance carrier shall, ninety days prior to the expiration of the one-hundred-four-week period, notify the custodian of the second injury fund of the pending case and shall furnish to said custodian a copy of the agreement or award together with all information purporting to support his claim as to the liability of the second injury fund.....” (Emphasis added.)

This language now appears in General Statutes Sec. 31-349(b). BACK TO TEXT

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: November 23, 2015

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1994/1399crb.htm

Workers’ Compensation Commission Disclaimer, Privacy Policy and Website Accessibility

State of Connecticut Workers' Compensation Commission, John A. Mastropietro, Chairman
Home News RSS News QUICK Find Index Search E-Mail
General Information Glossary Law CRB Opinions Workers' Compensation Commission Downloadable Forms and Publications Links