137 Conn. App. 665
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Thomas Wikander died from a work-related heart attack on Sept. 25, 2007, the same day as the accident.
- Plaintiff Donna Wikander filed a Connecticut claim on Sept. 15, 2009, within two years of death.
- Defendants did not file a Form 43 to contest liability.
- Commissioner ruled the claim timely within § 31-294c(a)’s two-year proviso, precluding contest, and awarded benefits.
- Board affirmed the commissioner; on appeal defendants challenge jurisdiction and timeliness under the two-year versus one-year periods.
- Court concludes death on the same day is within two years of the accident and proviso applies; claimant timely.
- No Form 43 contestation does not bar jurisdictional review of the timeliness question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proviso applies when death occurs on the same day as the accident | Wikander argues two-year proviso applies; death on date of injury fits within two years | Defendants contend death on the same day does not satisfy two-year window | Proviso applies; death on the same day is within two years and later period governs |
| Whether the two-year period includes death on the date of the accident | Two-year period should cover death on the accident date | Time should start after the accident date, excluding the day | Yes, within two years; the provision includes same-day death |
| Whether the two-year proviso, not the one-year period, governs dependent claims here | Two-year window applies, later than one year from death | One-year from death could control if proviso applied differently | Proviso yields two-year or one-year-from-death whichever later; dependent may file within two years or one year from death, whichever is later |
Key Cases Cited
- Fredette v. Connecticut Air National Guard, 283 Conn. 813 (Conn. 2007) (proviso expands dependent’s time when employee dies within two years; history and construction guiding outcome)
- Harpaz v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., 286 Conn. 102 (Conn. 2008) (statutory interpretation caution and legislative intent guidance)
- Kuehl v. Z-Loda Systems Engineering, Inc., 265 Conn. 525 (Conn. 2003) (remedial nature; notice requirement and jurisdictional limits)
- Russell v. Mystic Seaport Museum, Inc., 252 Conn. 596 (Conn. 2000) (distinction between date of injury for notice vs statute of limitations)