Coughlin v. Stamford Fire Dept.
Citations
- 334 Conn. 857
Syllabus
The named defendant, the Stamford Fire Department, appealed from the decision of the Compensation Review Board, which reversed the deci- sion of the Workers' Compensation Commissioner denying the plaintiff's claim for benefits under the statute (§ 7-433c) governing compensation for municipal police officers or firefighters with hypertension or heart disease. While employed as a firefighter, the plaintiff filed a claim for hypertension benefits pursuant to § 7-433c. The plaintiff subsequently retired, and the commissioner issued a finding and award, concluding that the plaintiff's hypertension claim was compensable. Shortly there- 858 MARCH, 2020 334 Conn. 857 Coughlin v. Stamford Fire Dept. after, D, the plaintiff's physician, issued a report assigning a permanent partial disability rating of the heart for the plaintiff's hypertension, which was acknowledged in a subsequent stipulated finding and award, and D, in that report and a supplemental report, diagnosed the plaintiff with coronary artery disease. D concluded that the plaintiff's hypertension was a significant factor in the development of his coronary artery dis- ease. The plaintiff then pursued compensation for his coronary artery disease, claiming that it flowed from his initial hypertension claim. Following a hearing, the commissioner found that the plaintiff was neither diagnosed with nor filed a claim under § 7-433c for coronary artery disease until after he had retired. The commissioner concluded that the plaintiff did not suffer from coronary artery disease or the resulting disability while he was on or off duty as a regular member of a municipal fire department and that D's opinion that the plaintiff was developing coronary artery disease while he was employed as a fire- fighter was not sufficient to render the claim compensable under § 7- 433c. Accordingly, the commissioner dismissed the plaintiff's claim for benefits related to his coronary artery disease. The plaintiff appealed from that decision t
Judges: Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.