Dickerson v. Stamford
Citations
- 334 Conn. 870
Syllabus
The named defendant, the city of Stamford, appealed from the decision of the Compensation Review Board, which vacated the Workers' Compen- sation Commissioner's dismissal of the plaintiff's claim for benefits under the statute (§ 7-433c) governing compensation for municipal police officers or firefighters with hypertension or heart disease. In 2000, while employed as a police officer with the Stamford Police Depart- ment, the plaintiff was diagnosed with hypertension, and, in 2004, the commissioner concluded that the plaintiff's hypertension was compensa- ble under § 7-433c. The plaintiff retired from the police department in 2004, and, in 2014, he suffered a myocardial infarction as a result of coronary artery disease. The plaintiff then filed a claim under § 7-433c for compensation for his coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction, asserting that these events or conditions were the sequelae of his com- pensable claim for hypertension. The commissioner concluded that hypertension and heart disease are two separate diseases for purposes of § 7-433c and that the plaintiff failed to file a notice of new claim within one year of his diagnosis of heart disease, in accordance with the notice provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act (§ 31-275 et seq.), and dismissed his claim. The plaintiff appealed from the commis- sioner's decision to the board, which vacated the commissioner's deci- sion, concluding that a cardiac event that occurs subsequent to an initial, compensable injury under § 7-433c need not be deemed a new injury and that to require a new notice of claim for a subsequent manifestation of a compensable injury would be inconsistent with the way in which workers' compensation claims have been previously handled under the act. The board remanded the case to the commissioner to make indepen- dent factual findings with respect to whether the plaintiff's heart disease was caused by his hypertension or constituted a new injury. On the city's appeal from the
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.