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

CRB Case Annotations re: Section 31-295

Waiting period. When compensation begins.

PREVIOUS Section | NEXT Section | MENU for CRB Annotations

THESE ANNOTATIONS ARE PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

Full texts of opinions, statutes and court decisions should be consulted and all citations and references fully researched by the reader.

The Annotations to Compensation Review Board Opinions are presented “as is” and the Commission makes no warranties as to the suitability of this information for any given purpose.
Please note also that Annotations change periodically due to several factors including, but not limited to, Appellate and Supreme Court decisions issued in workers’ compensation cases.

Abrahamson v. State/Dept. of Public Works, 5280 CRB-2-07-10 (February 26, 2009).

Trial commissioner ordered interest on late payment of permanency pursuant to both § 31-295(c) C.G.S. and § 31-300 C.G.S. CRB remanded, seeking clarification as to which statute constituted basis for award and whether there had been undue delay. On remand, trier found no undue delay and awarded interest pursuant to 31-300 C.G.S. only. Claimant appealed, arguing respondents improperly contested permanency because of apportionment reimbursement concerns and claimant was therefore entitled to mandatory interest pursuant to § 31-295(c) C.G.S. plus interest and attorney’s fees pursuant to § 31-300 C.G.S. CRB upheld award of interest pursuant to § 31-300 C.G.S. noting permanency continued to be litigated after claimant was rated due to complications in claimant’s medical history and a potential statute of non claim defense. CRB also determined that unlike § 31-303 C.G.S, neither § 31-295(c) C.G.S. nor § 31-300 C.G.S. allow for simultaneous payment of interest. CRB upheld trier’s finding of no undue delay on grounds that, in addition to medical record issues, claimant’s availability for litigation was hampered by his ill health and residence out-of-state for part of the year. Trier denied claimant’s Motion to Correct in its entirety. See also, Abrahamson, § 31-300, § 31-301, Factual Findings. § 31-303, § 31-301-4.

Liebel v. Stratford, 5070 CRB-4-06-3 (May 17, 2007).

Where evidence did not support finding that payment of permanency benefits began within 20 days of maximum medical improvement, CRB remanded for clarification of date of payment and award of interest, if necessary. See Liebel, § 31-294c, § 31-294d, 31-300, § 31-301. Appeal procedure, § 31-312; also cited at Liebel, § 31-278, § 31-298, § 31-307.

Hernandez v. American Truck Rental, 5083 CRB-7-06-4 (April 19, 2007).

Trial commissioner should have awarded interest on unpaid permanency award; as per Schenkel v. Richard Chevrolet, Inc., 4639 CRB-8-03-3 (March 12, 2004). See also, Hernandez, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-307, § 31-308(b), § 31-288(c), § 31-294d.

Abrahamson v. State/Department of Public Works, 5054 CRB-2-06-1 (January 9, 2007).

See, Abrahamson, § 31-300.

Maddaloni v. State/UConn., 4679 CRB-2-03-6 (June 4, 2004).

CRB affirmed trial commissioner’s order of interest for claimant’s multiple permanent partial disabilities under § 31-295 as of the date of IME’s report. Trier found claimant’s treater did not specify which date of injury was attributable to which injury. Trier is entitled to determine which date maximum medical improvement occurred. See also, Maddaloni, § 31-308(b).

Schenkel v. Richard Chevrolet, Inc., 4639 CRB-8-03-3 (March 12, 2004).

Payment of interest for unpaid permanency benefits is mandatory beginning 30 days after maximum medical improvement date. See also, Schenkel, § 294d, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-307, § 31-308(b), § 31-349.

Ruffino v. Middletown, 4508 CRB-8-02-3 (March 12, 2003).

See, Ruffino, § 7-433c.

Ortiz v. Highland Sanitation, 4439 CRB-4-01-9 (November 12, 2002).

Claimant was found to be entitled to payment of “permanent partial disability benefits” for sixteen-day period, followed by payment of 20% permanency award to shoulder commencing on date of maximum medical improvement. 10% interest per annum was awarded on all unpaid weeks, while attorney’s fees were denied. Sixteen-day permanent partial disability award was subsequently amended to reflect entitlement to temporary partial disability benefits. CRB agreed with claimant’s contention that interest cannot be awarded without attorney’s fees under § 31-300, but also agreed that trier had not made a finding of undue delay here. While unpaid permanency may be source of interest award under § 31-295(c), correction as to nature of 16-day award was irreconcilable with unaltered 10% interest order. Due to inconsistent findings, case remanded for clarification. See also, Ortiz, § 31-300; § 31-301. Factual findings.

Rayhall v. Akim Co., Inc., 4321 CRB-2-00-12 (November 5, 2001), aff’d, 263 Conn. 328 (2003).

Where claimant injured both legs in compensable incident, and one leg reached maximum medical improvement while the other continued to leave claimant temporarily partially disabled, CRB held that the phrase “member or members” in § 31-295(c) allows the claimant the option of continuing to receive temporary partial disability benefits until maximum improvement for all members has been reached. Any other construction would render the words “or members” meaningless. (Metro, C., DISSENTING): Alternate reading of “member or members” is plausible. More significant guidance is provided by § 31-308(b), which allows permanency to be paid in conjunction with temporary total disability, but not temporary partial. See also, Rayhall, § 31-278, 31-298, § 31-307, 31-308(b).

Vargas v. King-Conn Enterprises d/b/a Burger King Corporation, 3333 CRB-4-96-4 (October 24, 1997).

Respondents contended that claimant was not out of work for more than three days because she was released to full duty on the fourth day following her injury. However, within several weeks, she was treated by a doctor, and the respondent consented to this treatment. That doctor kept her out of work for over a month. Thus, she was disabled more than three days. See also, Vargas, § 31-294d, § 31-300.

Moxon v. State/Board of Trustees, Regional Community Colleges, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 246, 1485 CRB-1-92-8 (March 29, 1994), aff’d, 37 Conn. App. 648 (1995).

Where payment for permanent partial disability is not paid within thirty days following the date of maximum medical improvement, interest should be awarded. See also, Moxon, § 31-310 and § 31-315.

McCurdy v. State, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 22, 887 CRD-4-89-6 (January 10, 1991) aff’d, 26 Conn. App. 466 (1992), rev’d, 227 Conn. 261 (1993).

Claimant must be entitled to receive § 31-308 benefits before time requirements of § 31-295(c) will apply. See also, McCurdy, § 31-306, § 31-308(b).

Piscitelli v. Connecticut Coke/Eastern Gas and Fuel Associates, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 94, 575 CRD-3-87 (January 26, 1989).

Incapacity is not to be narrowly defined so as to defeat purpose of compensation.

Birdsell v. Bic Pen, 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 17, 201 CRD-3-83 (March 2, 1987), error in part, 16 Conn. App. 437 (1988).

See, Kreidler, infra. Appellate Court reversed.

Kreidler v. Bic Pen, 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 15, 200 CRD-3-83 (March 2, 1987), no error, 16 Conn. App. 437 (1988).

Wages should include scheduled overtime.

PREVIOUS Section | NEXT Section | MENU for CRB Annotations

State of Connecticut

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: December 17, 2013

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/annotations/an31-295.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