GAMEZ-REYES v. Biagi
136 Conn. App. 258
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Vidal Gamez-Reyes sought workers’ compensation benefits for a July 25, 2009 injury while working for defendant Donald F. Biagi, Jr.; Biagi admitted no workers’ compensation insurance and the plaintiff required a Spanish interpreter at trial.
- The accident occurred when the plaintiff fell from a ladder at the job site after the employer’s helpers struggled to stabilize it; the employer later took the plaintiff to Greenwich Hospital.
- The commissioner found an employer–employee relationship, a compensable injury, and that the employer failed to insure liability, while also sanctioning the defendant for frivolous contest and ordering interpreter’s fees.
- The defendant challenged the commissioner's jurisdiction, arguing intoxication barred compensability under § 31-275(1)(C); the commissioner and board rejected this jurisdictional argument.
- The board affirmed the award except for the interpreter’s fees, which the court remanded for articulation; the court held intoxication is an affirmative defense under § 31-284(a), not a jurisdictional bar, with the burden on the employer to prove intoxication and causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is intoxication a jurisdictional fact under § 31-275(1)(C)? | Gamez-Reyes lacks intoxication issue being jurisdictional. | Biagi contends intoxication is jurisdictional after Del Toro and 1993 amendments. | Intoxication is not jurisdictional; burden on employer as affirmative defense. |
| Who bears the burden to prove intoxication and that it caused the injury? | Employer bears burden to prove intoxication and causation. | Employer must prove intoxication caused the injury to bars compensability. | Burden remains on employer; if proven, not compensable under § 31-275(1)(C). |
| Whether interpreter’s fees were properly awarded or require remand for articulation | Interpreter’s fees were properly awarded as costs. | Interpreter’s fees require statutory enumeration under § 31-298 and/or board articulation. | Remanded to board for articulation on interpreter’s fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Castro v. Viera, 207 Conn. 420 (Conn. 1988) (subject matter jurisdiction framework; general jurisdictional principles)
- Del Toro v. Stamford, 270 Conn. 532 (Conn. 2004) (injury type and jurisdictional scope under § 31-275; categorization of injuries)
- DeAlmeida v. M.C.M. Stamping Corp., 29 Conn.App. 441 (Conn. App. 1992) (burden of proof; non-jurisdictional causation issues)
- Estate of Doe v. Dept. of Correction, 268 Conn. 753 (Conn. 2004) (jurisdictional analysis; general limits of commissioner authority)
- Liptak v. State, 176 Conn. 320 (Conn. 1978) (intoxication as affirmative defense; burden on employer)