138 Conn. App. 93
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff Sandhya Desmond, hospital employee, injured December 30, 2004 in course of employment; diagnosed with bilateral acute posttraumatic carpal tunnel injuries.
- Plaintiff filed workers’ compensation claim; defendants accepted the claim.
- May 20, 2010, plaintiff filed a Superior Court complaint with ten counts alleging various harms related to workers’ compensation claims processing.
- June 7, 2010, defendants moved to dismiss asserting exclusivity of the workers’ compensation act and exhaustion of administrative remedies.
- December 16, 2010, trial court dismissed the action, relying on DeOliveira to hold the claim fell within the act’s exclusive jurisdiction.
- Plaintiff appealed, challenging both the exclusivity ruling and due process claim; the court affirmed dismissal, addressing due process and related standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusivity bars this action in Superior Court | Desmond argues §31-290c creates a private action and an egregious-conduct exception. | Hospital contends the act’s exclusivity bars private damages actions arising from the workers’ compensation process. | Yes; exclusivity bars the action; no egregious-conduct exception applies. |
| Whether application of exclusivity violates the state constitution’s due process | Desmond asserts the act deprives her of a reasonable alternative to enforce rights in tort. | Hospital maintains the act provides a reasonable alternative and does not violate due process. | No due process violation; workers’ compensation framework provides a reasonable alternative. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeOliveira v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 273 Conn. 487 (Conn. 2006) (exclusivity reaches damages actions arising from the workers’ compensation claims process)
- Second Injury Fund v. Lupachino, 45 Conn. App. 324 (Conn. App. 1997) (treble damages and civil remedy under § 52-564; clarify limitations of § 31-290c)
- Mello v. Big Y Foods, Inc., 265 Conn. 21 (Conn. 2003) (due process review of exclusivity; reasonable alternative test; no constitutionality issue)
- Martinez v. Southington Metal Fabricating Co., 101 Conn. App. 796 (Conn. App. 2007) (exclusivity as compromise for quick and certain compensation; limits on rights)
- Stuart v. Stuart, 297 Conn. 26 (Conn. 2010) (preponderance of the evidence standard for treble damages under § 52-564)
- Boone v. William W. Backus Hospital, 272 Conn. 551 (Conn. 2005) (pleading interpretation; context of exclusive remedies and related standards)