320 Conn. 299
Conn.2016Background
- Janice McCullough (plaintiff) is the widow of Arthur McCullough (decedent), who worked at Swan Engraving and developed occupational pulmonary fibrosis from workplace exposures.
- Arthur filed a timely notice of claim for disability benefits in May 2002 (within three years of symptom manifestation); he later died on March 31, 2005.
- Arthur’s claim was eventually accepted and a voluntary agreement entered in 2013, but no benefits were paid prior to his death.
- Janice filed a claim for death and survivor’s benefits on April 19, 2006 (55 weeks after Arthur’s death).
- The Workers’ Compensation Commissioner held Janice’s survivor claim timely; the Workers’ Compensation Review Board reversed, holding a dependent must file a separate claim within the § 31-294c one-year limitation after death.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court granted review to decide whether a dependent must file a separate, timely notice of claim for survivor’s benefits when the employee filed a timely claim during life.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a dependent must file a separate notice for survivor’s benefits if the employee filed a timely claim during life | A timely claim by the employee satisfies the statute of limitations for dependents; no separate filing required | A dependent must file a separate notice within the § 31-294c time limits (one year after death or other applicable period) | Court held no separate notice is required when the employee filed a timely claim during life; reversed the board |
| Whether § 31-294c’s one-year/death limitations apply to the plaintiff’s situation | § 31-294c’s dependent-specific language (two-year/one-year exceptions) does not apply because death occurred more than two years after first manifestation | § 31-294c should be read to impose a one-year post-death limitation on dependents | Court found § 31-294c does not create a statute of limitations for dependents in this fact pattern |
| Whether deference to the board’s time-tested interpretation compels affirmance | Even time-tested agency interpretations must be reasonable and grounded in statutory text | Board’s longstanding practice (requiring separate dependent filings) should be accorded deference | Court declined deference because the board’s interpretation lacked support in the statute’s plain language |
| Whether § 31-306b requires dependent compliance with § 31-294c time limits here | Plaintiff contended § 31-306b does not apply because its notice-trigger provisions concern employer/insurer notices and only certain factual scenarios | Defendants argued § 31-306b ties dependent claims to § 31-294c time limits | Court read § 31-306b narrowly and held it does not impose the one-year filing requirement in these circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullins v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 315 Conn. 543 (2015) (standard of review for workers’ compensation appeals and deference to agency interpretations)
- Stec v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 299 Conn. 346 (2010) (agency interpretations receive deference only if reasonable)
- Fredette v. Connecticut Air National Guard, 283 Conn. 813 (2007) (interpreting § 31-294c in occupational disease context; did not decide issue presented here)
- Kuehl v. Z-Loda Systems Engineering, Inc., 265 Conn. 525 (2003) (affirmed dismissal of widow’s claim where separate timely filing was absent; factually distinguishable and did not address question decided here)
- Laliberte v. United Security, Inc., 261 Conn. 181 (2001) (remedial purpose of workers’ comp. act counsels liberal construction and leaves policy exclusions to legislature)