Velecela v. All Habitat Services, LLC
141 A.3d 778
Conn.2016Background
- Plaintiff Jenny Velecela sued her husband's employer, All Habitat Services, LLC, for negligent infliction of bystander emotional distress after discovering his body crushed under an ATV at work.
- The husband, Austin Irwin, died in the workplace accident; his bodily injury/death was undisputedly compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act.
- Plaintiff received funeral payments and later a $300,000 stipulation award from the Workers' Compensation Commissioner.
- Defendant raised the workers’ compensation exclusivity provision, § 31-284(a), as a special defense and moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant; plaintiff appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which transferred the appeal and reviewed the statutory interpretation de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a bystander emotional distress claim that derives from an employee’s compensable injury/death is barred by § 31‑284(a) exclusivity | Velecela: her bystander claim should survive; exclusivity shouldn’t bar derivative emotional distress absent separate compensability | All Habitat: § 31‑284(a) abolishes all rights/claims that "arise out of" compensable injury/death, including derivative bystander claims | Court: Held barred — derivative bystander emotional distress "arises out of" the compensable injury/death and is therefore within § 31‑284(a) exclusivity |
Key Cases Cited
- Galgano v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 267 Conn. 512 (bystander emotional distress derives from bodily injury to another)
- Driscoll v. General Nutrition Corp., 252 Conn. 215 (workers' compensation bargain trades tort remedies for certain, speedy benefits)
- Lynn v. Haybuster Mfg., Inc., 226 Conn. 282 (exclusivity provision’s sweeping language bars derivative dependent claims)
- Perodeau v. Hartford, 259 Conn. 729 (distinguishing nonderivative injuries not compensable under the Act)
- Larke v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 90 Conn. 303 (interpreting “arising out of” to require causal connection)
- Kasica v. Columbia, 309 Conn. 85 (statutory interpretation and starting with prior constructions)
- Gilmore v. Pawn King, Inc., 313 Conn. 535 (discussion of stare decisis and statutory construction)