206 Conn.App. 223
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Clark was hired by Waterford as a part‑time firefighter on May 24, 1992, and promoted to full‑time on June 18, 1997; he suffered a myocardial infarction on June 24, 2017 and filed for Heart and Hypertension Act (§ 7‑433c) benefits.
- § 7‑433c provides benefits for "a uniformed member of a paid municipal fire department" who passed a pre‑employment physical and suffers heart disease or hypertension, but excludes persons who began employment on or after July 1, 1996.
- § 7‑425(5) (in part II, "Retirement") defines "member" for the Municipal Employees’ Retirement Act to exclude persons who customarily work less than 20 hours/week and otherwise focuses on employees of municipalities that opt into the state retirement fund.
- The town contested compensability, arguing Clark was not a "member" under § 7‑425(5) (he did not show 20+ hours/week before July 1, 1996) and thus was ineligible for § 7‑433c benefits.
- The commissioner awarded benefits (treating Clark as employed since 1992); the Compensation Review Board affirmed on statutory grounds (concluding § 7‑425(5) does not control § 7‑433c). The town appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the term "member" in § 7‑433c is defined by § 7‑425(5) | Clark: § 7‑433c’s plain text covers any uniformed paid firefighter who meets § 7‑433c criteria; § 7‑425(5) pertains to the retirement fund and does not apply. | Waterford: §§ 7‑425 and 7‑433c are in the same part; § 7‑425(5) governs "member" and excludes those working <20 hrs/week, so Clark is ineligible. | Court: § 7‑425(5) concerns retirement‑fund membership and participating municipalities; § 7‑433c governs a distinct benefits scheme and its use of "member" is an express exception—§ 7‑425(5) does not control § 7‑433c. |
| Whether record supports finding Clark customarily worked ≥20 hrs/week before 7/1/1996 | Clark: testimony and job duties show consistent service and like duties to full‑time firefighters. | Waterford: testimony showed irregular, varying shifts; record lacks proof of 20+ hrs/week. | Board found evidence insufficient to infer consistent 20+ hours, but court did not need to resolve this factual question because statutory interpretation rendered § 7‑425(5) inapplicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holston v. New Haven Police Dept., 323 Conn. 607 (discusses standard of review and prior treatment of § 7‑433c)
- Grover v. Manchester, 168 Conn. 84 (explains legislative intent and remedial purpose of Heart and Hypertension Act)
- Bucko v. New London, 13 Conn. App. 566 (interpreting "regular member" language under § 7‑433c without requiring permanent appointment)
- Evanuska v. Danbury, 285 Conn. 348 (extends focus on duties, not hourly status, in applying presumptions for volunteer firefighters)
- Conway v. Wilton, 238 Conn. 653 (principle that statutes should be read together to create a consistent body of law)
- Ciarlelli v. Hamden, 299 Conn. 265 (worker’s‑compensation statutes are remedial and construed broadly in favor of employees)