208 Conn.App. 615
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Victor Diaz, a retired Bridgeport police officer, developed hypertension while employed and later coronary artery disease and chronic kidney disease attributed to that hypertension.
- The commissioner found compensable impairments and, in a supplemental award, granted 245 weeks of permanent partial disability at $551.13/week (maximum at date of injury = $671).
- Diaz requested commutation of the final 123 weeks of the 245‑week award into a lump sum; commissioner approved the partial commutation (weeks 123–245) with a moratorium on weekly payments for the commuted period and ordered weekly payments to continue through week 122.
- The city (and its insurer) appealed to the Compensation Review Board, which affirmed; the city then appealed to the Appellate Court.
- Central statutory provisions: General Statutes §§ 31‑302 (commutation), 31‑309(a) (maximum weekly compensation), and 7‑433b/7‑433c (heart & hypertension benefits cap and treatment as workers’ compensation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a lump‑sum commutation must be counted toward the §31‑309(a) maximum weekly compensation | Diaz: commutation is authorized by §31‑302 and need not be treated as a weekly payment for §31‑309(a) purposes | City: lump sum plus concurrent weekly payments mean payment in the commutation week exceeds statutory maximum weekly compensation | Court: Lump sums under §31‑302 are not "weekly compensation" under §31‑309(a); the weekly rate alone did not exceed the maximum, so no violation |
| Whether the §7‑433b(b) cap on heart/hypertension benefits includes lump‑sum commutation payments | Diaz: §7‑433b(b) limits cumulative weekly payments (disability + pension) and does not encompass one‑time commutation payments | City: the lump sum plus weekly disability and pension cause a one‑time breach of the §7‑433b(b) cap | Court: §7‑433b(b) caps recurring weekly payments; one‑time commutation is excluded, and without the lump sum the weekly totals did not exceed the cap |
| Whether commutation while concurrent weekly payments run constitutes impermissible double recovery or violates equity | Diaz: commutation converts part of the same single award into a lump sum; total payout remains limited to 245 weeks so there is no double recovery | City: receiving a lump sum for weeks 123–245 while also getting weeks 1–122 weekly is effectively payment twice for the same period and unfair to employer | Court: No double recovery—total remains the same award; timing/structure alone do not create a windfall or violate equity; actuarial discount protects employer |
| Whether commissioner should have imposed a moratorium on the "front end" (weeks 1–122) when granting the back‑end commutation | Diaz: commissioner has discretion under §31‑302 to structure partial commutations and to continue front‑end payments | City: commissioner erred by allowing concurrent front‑end weekly payments without suspending them during commutation, undermining §31‑309 and fairness | Court: Commissioner has broad discretion; partial commutation with concurrent weekly payments is permissible and consistent with remedial purpose and statutory harmony |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutter v. Janis, 334 Conn. 722 (statutory construction principles govern interpretation)
- Balloli v. New Haven Police Dept., 324 Conn. 14 (workers’ compensation statutes are remedial and construed broadly in favor of claimants)
- Carriero v. Naugatuck, 243 Conn. 747 (benefits under §7‑433c are payable and administered under the Workers’ Compensation Act)
- O’Connor v. Waterbury, 286 Conn. 732 (§7‑433c provides benefits equivalent to workers’ compensation)
- Reid v. Hartford Fuel Supply Co., 120 Conn. 541 (commutation must be reasonably necessary for claimant welfare and just to all parties)
- Pokorny v. Getta’s Garage, 219 Conn. 439 (principle against double recovery; no windfall allowed)
- McGowan v. General Dynamics Corp./Electric Boat Div., 210 Conn. 580 (crediting other awards to avoid double recovery)
- Yelunin v. Royal Ride Transportation, 121 Conn. App. 144 (standard of review in workers’ compensation appeals)
- State v. Spears, 234 Conn. 78 (interpret statutes to foster harmony among related provisions)