213 Conn. 54 | Conn. | 1989
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the legislature intended judges of the Superior Court to come within the jurisdictional confines of the Workers’ Compensation Act, General Statutes
On the basis of these findings of fact, the commissioner concluded that the decedent’s employment relationship with the defendant constituted a contract of employment for the purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Act; General Statutes § 31-275 (5); and that the decedent’s death arose out of and in the course of his employment. Accordingly, the commissioner awarded the plaintiff the maximum allowable spousal survivor-ship benefits under § 31-306 (b) (2).
We must decide in this case whether the legislature intended the Workers’ Compensation Act to confer jurisdiction upon the commissioner to award benefits to the plaintiff. Even though the plaintiff has presented a factual record that warrants sympathetic consideration of her claims, her entitlement to relief cannot transcend the jurisdictional limits of the statute under which she seeks recovery. Once an issue of subject matter jurisdiction is raised,
The plaintiff would have us resolve the jurisdictional issue in this case by deferring to the commissioner’s findings of fact. This we cannot do. We recognize that the commissioner found that the decedent’s judicial duties amounted to a contractual relationship with the defendant such that he was an “employee” for purposes of workers’ compensation as defined by § 31-275 (5). While it is correct that “[bjecause only employees are entitled to compensation under the act . . . coverage must arise from a contract of employment, either express or implied”; Blancato v. Feldspar Corporation, 203 Conn. 34, 38, 522 A.2d 1235 (1987); Sibley v. State, 89 Conn. 682, 686-87, 96 A. 161 (1915); our jurisdictional inquiry is not limited to the commissioner’s factual finding of the decedent’s contract of employment with the defendant. The elements of subject matter jurisdiction are “dependent upon both law and fact.” (Emphasis added.) Castro v. Viera, supra, 433. Although the plaintiff correctly asserts that the power and duty of determining facts rests on the commissioner as the trier of facts; Fair v. People’s Savings Bank, 207 Conn. 535, 539, 542 A.2d 1118 (1988); the conclusions drawn by the commissioner cannot stand when they result from an incorrect application of the law. Id.; Adzima v. UAC/NordenDivision, supra, 118.
We begin our examination of the scope of § 31-275 (5) by recourse to the accepted rules of statutory construction. We look first to the text of § 31-275 (5) itself. Because § 31-275 (5) consists of a functional definition with expressly delineated exceptions, for purposes of clarity, we will focus first on the operative meaning before integrating the exceptions into our analysis. Section 31-275 (5) defines “employee” in relevant part as “any person who has entered into or works under any contract of service or apprenticeship with an employer . . . . ” This language, on its face, expresses no clear legislative intent as to whether a member of the judi-
It is undisputed that judges of the Superior Court meet the three part test that determines the existence of a public office: “ ‘(1) an authority conferred by law, (2) a fixed tenure of office, and (3) the power to exercise some portion of the sovereign functions of government. Kelly v. Bridgeport, 111 Conn. 667, 671, 151 A. 268 [1930]; Mechem, Public Officers § 1.’ ” Murach v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 196 Conn. 192, 198, 491 A.2d 1058 (1985). The Connecticut constitution so provides. With respect to the first and third prongs, article second of the Connecticut constitution, in dividing the broad powers of government into three distinct branches, confers “a separate [judicial] magistracy” upon a “distinct department,” the judiciary; Pellegrino v. O’Neill, 193 Conn. 670, 679, 480 A.2d 476, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 875, 105 S. Ct. 236, 83 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1984); Heiberger v. Clark, 148 Conn. 177, 185, 169 A.2d 652 (1961); while article fifth, § 1 describes its organizational structure and reiterates that its powers and jurisdiction shall be defined by law. With respect to the second prong, article fifth, § 2 provides in relevant part: “They shall hold their offices for the term of eight years . . . .” Moreover, the judiciary’s right
The distinction between public employees and public officers, for the purpose of workers’ compensation, finds textual recognition in the jurisdictional definitions contained in the Workers’ Compensation Act. Section 31-275 (5) expressly includes some public officers, but not judges, within the class of those eligible for workers’ compensation by defining “employee” in relevant part to “include any person elected to serve as a member of the general assembly of this state and . . . any salaried officer or paid member of any police department or fire department and any elected or appointed official or agent of any city, town or borough, upon vote of the proper authority of such city, town or borough. . . . ” This enumeration would have been wholly unnecessary had these public officials constituted employees under the analysis of Sibley v. State, supra. Because, for purposes of statutory construction, we presume a purpose behind every sentence, clause or phrase in a legislative enactment; Peek v. Jac-quemin, supra, 66; we must attach significance to the legislature’s intention to grant workers’ compensation only to those public officers expressly described in
The legislative history of the evolution of the definition of “employee” under the Workers’ Compensation Act supports our conclusion that the legislature intended the express inclusions enumerated in § 31-275 (5) to be exclusive. Until 1921, the definition of “employee” necessary to invoke workers’ compensation had been limited to “any person who has entered into or works under any contract . . . .” General Statutes (1918 Rev.) § 5388. When we construed this contractual language to deny benefits to a member of a municipal fire department in McDonald v. New Haven, supra, 417-18, however, the legislature expressly amended the definition to bypass the decisional law for a specific category of public positions. See General Statutes (1918 Rev.) § 5388, as amended by chapter 306, § 11 of the Public Acts of 1921. Each subsequent addition to the category of public positions evinces an intention on the part of the legislature carefully to circumscribe the expansion of named beneficiaries.
It bears noting, finally, that the legislature has enacted comprehensive provisions concerning benefits specifically for judges. General Statutes, chapter 872. These statutes not only provide annual salaries; General Statutes § 51-47;
To construe § 31-275 (5) to include members of the judiciary within the class of those entitled to receive workers’ compensation benefits would constitute a radical departure from established policy. We will not infer that the legislature intended to enact a significant change in existing law without an unequivocally expressed manifestation of legislative intent. Iacomacci v. Trumbull, 209 Conn. 219, 222, 550 A.2d 640 (1988); Jennings v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 140 Conn. 650, 667, 103 A.2d 535 (1954). Were this court to award compensation benefits to the spouse of a deceased judge, we “would be legislating by adding a new class to the coverage of this act which proclaims its limited scope.” Castro v. Viera, supra, 435. This we cannot do.
In response to the reservation from the compensation review division, whether a judge of the Superior Court is an “employee” for purposes of entitlement to workers’ compensation as defined by § 31-275 (5), we answer no.
In this opinion the other justices concurred.
The compensation review division originally reserved two questions for the advice of this court: (1) Is a judge of the Superior Court of Connecticut an “employee” as defined in General Statutes § 31-275 (5)? (2) Does the widow of such a judge making a claim on her own and her children’s behalf for survivor dependency benefits under General Statutes § 31-306 satisfy the prerequisite jurisdictional elements necessary to effect entitlement pursuant to General Statutes, chapter 568? Counsel for both parties stipulated at oral argument that, because the existence of an employee-employer relationship is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an award of compensation benefits, the first question presents a threshold issue dispositive of this appeal. We therefore do not reach the second question.
General Statutes § 31-324 states in relevant part: “When, in any case arising under the provisions of this chapter, the compensation review division is of the opinion that the .decision involves principles of law which are not free from reasonable doubt and which public interest requires shall be determined by the appellate court, in order that a definite rule be established applicable to future cases, said compensation review division may, on its own motion and without any agreement or act of the parties or their counsel, reserve such case for the opinion of the appellate court. ...”
Procedurally, we have transferred this reservation to ourselves on two separate occasions. This court initially transferred the appeal to itself, but
General Statutes § 31-298 provides in relevant part: “In all cases and hearings under the provisions of this chapter, the commissioner shall proceed, so far as possible, in accordance with the rules of equity. He shall not be bound by the ordinary common law or statutory rules of evidence or procedure, but shall make inquiry in such manner ... as is best calculated to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties and carry out justly the spirit of this chapter.”
The decedent’s immediate supervisor, Chief Court Administrator Aaron Ment, testified and the commissioner so found that “ ‘five hats were a lot of work to do’ and that no single judge since then does all these jobs anywhere in the state.”
The fact that a finding of similar causality by the commissioner in the case of a private employee covered by workers’ compensation would result in an award of benefits; McDonough v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., 204 Conn. 104, 119, 527 A.2d 664 (1987); sheds no light on the legal issue presently before us regarding the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Act to judges of the Superior Court.
Although the defendant initially contested its liability by claiming that the decedent’s heart conditions were preexisting and not causally related to his work, it declined to challenge the causality finding on appeal.
The commissioner ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff dependent widow $408 weekly plus the applicable cost of living increase as provided in General Statutes § 31-306 (b) (2), any reasonable medical bills incurred as a result of his death, and the statutory burial allowance of $3000. Initially, the commissioner also had awarded the decedent's minor children benefits in the amount of $10 weekly, but that award was later revoked in a corrected finding by the commissioner because survivorship benefits under § 31-306 do not provide for dependency benefits under General Statutes 5 31-308b.
Both the defendant and the compensation review division on its own motion raised the question of subject matter jurisdiction in the instant case.
Like courts of probate; In re Juvenile Appeal (85-BC), 195 Conn. 344, 366-67 n.18, 488 A.2d 790 (1985); and administrative agencies; Waterbury v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 160 Conn. 226, 230, 278 A.2d 771 (1971); workers’ compensation commissioners must act strictly within their statutory authority and cannot unilaterally modify, abridge or otherwise change such provisions because the act’s enabling legislation does not expressly grant that power. Castro v. Viera, 207 Conn. 420, 428-29, 541 A.2d 1216 (1988).
General Statutes § 31-275 (6) defines “employer” for purposes of establishing liability under the act. It is uncontested that the defendant may be found to be an “employer” under § 31-275 (6).
Attorney General Carl R. Ajello confirmed this distinction in an informational opinion in the form of a letter to State Comptroller J. Edward Caldwell dated January 21,1976. In response to an inquiry whether a Superior Court judge, suspended from service by the Judicial Department pending disposition of a criminal charge against him, is entitled to his regular salary, the attorney general stated that “[a] Judge of the Superior Court is one who holds an office,” and that his “right to a salary depends upon the legal title to the office and not upon the performance of the work.”
For example, the legislature expanded the definition of “employees” to include members of the General Assembly in 1972. The legislative history of the debate surrounding passage of that legislation is particularly instructive on the point that the legislature was aware that state officers do not receive their salary as a matter of contract of service and would thus need a special amendment bypassing decisional law in order to qualify for workers’ compensation benefits. Representative Gerald F. Stevens remarked: “I would submit to you that once you take the oath of office you don’t ever have to come here and you are entitled to your pay.” 15 H.R. Proc., Pt. 6, 1972 Sess., p. 2494A-55.
General Statutes § 45-29u provides in relevant part: “probate court administrator, salary AND benefits, (a) The probate court administrator shall be paid by the judicial department and shall be compensated in the same manner and amount as a superior court judge as provided in section 51-47. . . .
“(b) The probate court administrator shall receive: (1) Retirement benefits provided in sections 51-49 to 51-50b, inclusive, and section 51-51; (2) life insurance benefits provided in section 5-257; (3) medical insurance benefits as provided in section 5-259; and (4) any other benefits which may be established for superior court judges by the general assembly or by the judicial department.”
General Statutes § 5-257 provides in relevant part: “group life insurance. (a) The comptroller, with the approval of the attorney general and of the insurance commissioner, may revise the group insurance plan for employees of the state by amendment of any existing group life insurance policy or policies or by procuring from one or more life insurance companies authorized to do business in Connecticut a policy or policies of group life insurance covering employees of the state. Each employee in active state service shall be eligible for insurance under this section, provided he shall have completed more than six months’ continuous state service, and each member of the general assembly shall be eligible for insurance under this section, six months after taking office.”
General Statutes § 5-259 provides in relevant part: “hospitalization AND MEDICAL AND SURGICAL INSURANCE PLAN. ELIGIBILITY, (a) The comptroller, with the approval of the attorney general and of the insurance com
As the state maintains, it is clear as a matter of law that a statutorily mandated salary, such as provided for judges in General Statutes § 51-47, does not create a private contract. “[Tjhere exists a ‘well-established presumption’ against finding that a statute creates private vested contractual rights absent a clear showing of legislative intent to the contrary. Taliaferro v. Dykstra, 434 F. Sup. 705, 710-11 (E.D. Va. 1977).” Pineman v. Oechslin, 195 Conn. 405, 410-11, 488 A.2d 803 (1985).