Skip to main content
· 8/3/2021

Maghfour v. Waterbury

Citations

  • 340 Conn. 41

Syllabus

The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant city, sought to resolve a dispute concerning a lien the city placed on certain settlement proceeds that he had received as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred in 2016. At all relevant times, the city was self-insured and paid for the medical care that the plaintiff received in connection with the accident. In July, 2017, the legislature passed an amendment (P.A. 17-165, § 1) to a statute (§ 7-464) concerning group insurance benefits for municipal employees that allowed a self-insured city that provides health benefits for its employees to file a lien on the portion of any settlement proceeds that represents payment for medical expenses incurred by a city employee when such expenses result from the negligence or reckless- ness of a third party. Later in July, 2017, the plaintiff filed an action against the third-party tortfeasor who had caused the plaintiff to sustain injuries in the accident. Thereafter, on October 1, 2017, P.A. 17-165, § 1, became effective. In October, 2018, the city filed a notice of lien, claiming a right to reimbursement for amounts that it had paid for the plaintiff's medical expenses from any judgment or settlement the plaintiff might receive arising from the accident. Approximately one week later, the plaintiff settled his civil action against the third-party tortfeasor. The plaintiff then brought the present action, claiming that P.A. 17-165, § 1, did not authorize the lien filed by the city because the plaintiff's injuries 42 DECEMBER, 2021 340 Conn. 41 Maghfour v. Waterbury occurred and his action against the third-party tortfeasor was com- menced before the effective date of P.A. 17-165, § 1. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and rendered judg- ment thereon, concluding, inter alia, that the legislature did not expressly indicate that it intended for P.A. 17-165, § 1, to apply retroactively to pending actions and, therefore, that the statute (§ 55

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.