2 Conn. App. 255 | Conn. App. Ct. | 1984
This is an appeal1 by the plaintiff, Harold Revoir, from the decision of the compensation review division of the workers' compensation commission which affirmed the commissioner's finding and award. The decision of the commissioner ordered the defendant city of New Britain to pay benefits under General Statutes
The plaintiff had been a full time member of the New Britain fire department since 1957. Prior to being hired as a fireman, he underwent a physical examination which did not reveal any evidence of hypertension or *257 heart disease. On October 10, 1980, the plaintiff Suffered a myocardial infarction (heart attack) and was subsequently diagnosed as suffering from coronary artery disease. As a result, he was permanently disabled from employment as a fire fighter. He was not, however, disabled from performing all types of gainful employment. The plaintiff was retired on a disability pension effective January 19, 1981, by the New Britain board of fire commissioners.
The plaintiff thereafter filed a claim with the workers' compensation commission pursuant to General Statutes
The plaintiff appealed to the workers' compensation review division, claiming that the commissioner erred in failing to award compensation benefits based upon his disability from employment as a fire fighter. The compensation review division affirmed the finding and award of the commissioner and the plaintiff filed this appeal asserting the same claim of error.
The plaintiff contends that it was error to find that he was only entitled to benefits equal to those of chapter 568 of the General Statutes for temporary or permanent, total or partial disability. He alleges that
Section
It is a basic tenet of statutory construction that a statute is to be construed as a whole. Duguay v. Hopkins,
There is nothing in the Workers' Compensation Act indicating that benefits payable under chapter 568 are based upon the degree to which the claimant's disability precludes him from continuing in the job he held at the time the injury was sustained. In Czeplicki v. Fafnir Bearing Co.,
Section
The plaintiff is correct in his assertion that
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.