This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court which affirmed an award of the State Board of Workers’ Compensation granting the claimant compensation and directing the Hartford Insurance Group to pay the benefits. Held:
1. The evidence authorized a finding that the claimant was injured on or about August 18, 1976; that the claimant continued to work until his condition, which resulted from the accident, gradually worsened over a period of time, due to the performance of his duties, to the point he was required to terminate his employment on January 3, 1977; that the Hartford Insurance Group ceased to have the workers’ compensation insurance coverage on November 1,1976 when it was taken over by Aetna Insurance Company.
2. The evidence having authorized an award granting the claimant compensation, the only remaining issue is which of the insurance carriers is liable for the benefits due the claimant.
In
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. White,
Under that which was held in the White case, in the case sub judice Aetna Insurance Company had the coverage on the date the claimant was forced to terminate his employment and is therefore liable for the payment of the compensation benefits.
It is noted that the terminology employed by the author of this opinion in the
White
case was not entirely accurate. See
Garner v. Atlantic Bldg. Systems,
It should be pointed out that the "new accident theory cases” only apply in those instances where the claimant is injured and goes back to work subsequent thereto without any agreement or award as to that injury having been approved or issued by the State Board of Workers’ Compensation.
In the "new accident” cases, the date of the "new accident” is the date that the injury manifested itself, that is, the date the claimant is forced to cease his employment, where the claimant is injured and continues in his employment until as a result of his condition he is forced to terminate his employment.
House v. Echota Cotton Mills,
A different theory is applied in a case where the claimant is injured and draws compensation under an agreement or award and subsequently returns to his employment, and that as the result of performing his normal duties his condition gradually grows worse to the point he is no longer able to continue in his employment. Under these circumstances the claimant has had a change in condition and not a "new accident.”
St. Paul Fire &c. Ins. Co. v. Hughes,
This case is reversed with direction that it be remanded to the State Board of Workers’ Compensation with direction that a new award be entered in accordance with that which is held in this opinion.
Judgment reversed with direction.
