190 Conn. App. 718
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Thomas Brocuglio, a career firefighter, underwent mitral valve replacement and single-vessel CABG in 2013 and filed a Form 30C claiming benefits under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-433c (Heart and Hypertension Act).
- Brocuglio had been diagnosed with constrictive/recurrent pericarditis (a form of heart disease) in November 2000, treated and followed by cardiologists thereafter; he did not produce credible evidence of filing a 2000 Form 30C.
- A commissioner-appointed cardiologist (Tally) concluded the 2000 pericarditis was a healed, distinct episode and that the 2013 mitral valve/coronary disease was a separate heart disease.
- The Workers’ Compensation Commissioner found the 2013 condition compensable under § 7-433c; the Compensation Review Board affirmed, relying on the commissioner’s medical-findings-driven determination that the 2013 disease was a new and distinct heart disease.
- The defendant (Thompsonville Fire District #2) appealed, arguing the one-year notice requirement of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-294c(a) barred the 2013 claim because Brocuglio was informed in 2000 that he had heart disease and did not timely file a claim then.
- The Appellate Court reversed: it held § 7-433c does not permit multiple claims for different forms/instances of heart disease and Ciarlelli controls the one-year triggering rule, so failure to file within one year of the 2000 diagnosis deprived the commissioner of jurisdiction over the 2013 claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 31-294c(a)’s one-year notice bars a later § 7-433c claim when claimant previously was diagnosed with a different form of heart disease | Brocuglio: previous pericarditis was healed and 2013 mitral valve/coronary disease is a new, distinct heart disease, so the 2013 claim is timely | Thompsonville: once informed in 2000 that he had heart disease (pericarditis), Brocuglio had one year to file; failing to do so bars any later heart-disease claim | Held: barred — one-year notice runs from first medical diagnosis of heart disease; failure to file in 2000 deprives commissioner of jurisdiction over 2013 claim |
| Whether § 7-433c allows multiple separate claims for different forms or instances of heart disease during employment | Brocuglio: distinct diagnoses permit separate claims (relying on commissioner’s factual finding of distinct diseases) | Thompsonville: statute does not provide for multiple heart-disease claims; only one claimable heart-disease event after preemployment-clearance | Held: § 7-433c contains no provision for multiple heart-disease claims; claimant cannot file a later claim for a different heart disease if he failed to timely claim the earlier diagnosis |
| Role of medical findings distinguishing disease episodes in tolling or restarting limitations under § 31-294c(a) and § 7-433c | Brocuglio: medical evidence showing healed prior disease supports treating later disease as new for notice purposes | Thompsonville: medical distinctions don’t override statutory one-year notice requirement triggered by prior diagnosis | Held: Medical distinction alone does not override the statutory notice requirement; statutory text/control governs jurisdiction |
| Deference to commissioner/board on novel statutory construction of § 7-433c notice scope | Brocuglio: commissioner and board findings entitled to deference where based on medical evidence | Thompsonville: statutory interpretation is a question of law; board’s agency interpretation not entitled to deference absent time-tested rule | Held: Plenary review applied; the court interpreted the unambiguous statute and reversed board/commissioner |
Key Cases Cited
- Ciarlelli v. Hamden, 299 Conn. 265 (Conn. 2010) (one-year limitation under § 31-294c begins when physician informs employee of diagnosis of hypertension or heart disease)
- Holston v. New Haven Police Dept., 323 Conn. 607 (Conn. 2016) (§ 7-433c treats hypertension and heart disease as separate categories for claims)
- Malchik v. Division of Criminal Justice, 266 Conn. 728 (Conn. 2003) (analysis of coronary artery disease as occupational disease context)
- Carter v. Clinton, 304 Conn. 571 (Conn. 2012) (timely notice under § 31-294c is a jurisdictional prerequisite for § 7-433c claims)
- Pearce v. New Haven, 76 Conn. App. 441 (Conn. App. 2003) (notice requirements under workers’ compensation and purpose of § 31-294c notice)