Ciarlelli v. TOWN OF HAMDEN
8 A.3d 1093
| Conn. | 2010Background
- Plaintiff David Ciarlelli, a Hamden police officer, sought hypertension benefits under § 7-433c, administered through the Workers' Compensation Act framework.
- The one-year limitation for filing under § 31-294c(a) was at issue, including whether hypertension is an accidental injury definite in time and place or a repetitive trauma.
- Medical evidence showed elevated readings from 2000–2003, but a treating physician, Monaco, did not diagnose hypertension until May 11, 2004.
- Plaintiff filed a May 20, 2004 notice of claim; Krauthamer, the defense cardiologist, opined that hypertension readings in 2000–2003 should have alerted a claim earlier.
- The commissioner dismissed the claim as untimely; the board affirmed, relying on Pearce/Arborio to treat knowledge of symptoms as triggering notice.
- The Supreme Court held that the one-year period begins when a medical professional informs the employee of a hypertension diagnosis, not merely from symptoms, and remanded accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hypertension classification for §31-294c timing | Hypertension is a repetitive trauma; timing should follow last exposure. | Hypertension is an accidental injury definitely located in time and place. | Hypertension treated as accidental injury definite in time and place. |
| When does the one-year §31-294c(a) period begin for §7-433c claims | Begin from notice of symptoms, not diagnosis. | Begin from diagnosis communicated by a medical professional. | Period begins when medical professional informs of hypertension diagnosis (May 2004). |
| Validity of Pearce/Arborio framing in this case | Pearce/Arborio correctly require notice upon awareness of symptoms. | Pearce/Arborio should govern time when hypertension diagnosed or symptoms manifest; prior standard appropriate. | Majority overrules earlier Pearce/Arborio-based approach, adopting diagnosis-based trigger. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearce v. New Haven, 76 Conn.App. 441 (2003) (establishes notice upon physician-informed hypertensive status and symptoms as triggering timing)
- Arborio v. Windham Police Dept., 103 Conn.App. 172 (2007) (raises questions about Pearce's treatment of symptoms; discusses notice and injury timing)
- Malchik v. Division of Criminal Justice, 266 Conn. 728 (2003) (rejects automatic occupational-disease treatment for hypertension in timing analysis; analyzes causation framework)
- Collins v. West Haven, 210 Conn. 423 (1989) (notion that § 7-433c directs to Workers' Compensation Act procedures)
- Janco v. Fairfield, 39 Conn.Supp. 403 (1983) (held that § 7-433c claims must follow notice provisions; later overruled)
- McDonough v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., 204 Conn. 104 (1987) (discusses discrete onset of disability in heart-related claims)
- Stier v. Derby, 119 Conn. 44 (1934) (early authority on injury timing and location concepts)