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

 

WCC Section 31-284b Memorandum - December 30, 1992


TO: All Compensation District Offices, Commissioners, Self-Insureds, Insurance Carriers, Attorneys, Unions, CBIA and WC Advisory Board.
FROM: Jesse M. Frankl, Chairman
DATE: December 30, 1992
RE: Section 31-284b

Effective immediately, the Workers' Compensation Commission district offices will not hold informal or formal hearings dealing with Section 31-284b cases except if the claimant is a municipal or state employee.

The U.S. Supreme on December 14, 1992 in the case of District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Board of Trade 61 USLW 4039 ____S. Ct. ____(1992) has ruled by an 8 to 1 decision that a District of Columbia statute, which is similarly worded to Connecticut's § 31-284b, was unconstitutional. However, our belief that municipalities and the State of Connecticut are specifically exempt is based on the ERISA statute itself which exempts governmental plans from coverage.

There are presently three cases pending before the Connecticut Supreme Court dealing with this statute:

Frank Luis v. Frito Lay 
Albert Almeida v. Frito Lay
Roger Turcotte v. Frito Lay

Docket No. SC 14536, Frank Luis, et al v. Frito Lay

The Supreme Court may have a more specific ruling dealing with this statute.


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

State of Connecticut
Workers' Compensation Commission
Page last revised: April 28, 2000
Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/memos/1992-1997/memo123092.htm

Workers' Compensation Commission Disclaimer, Privacy Policy and Website Accessibility