HARPER v. STATE, MANSFIELD STATE TRAINING SCHOOL, 319 CRD-1-84 (10-15-87)

MARY HARPER, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT vs. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, MANSFIELD STATE TRAINING SCHOOL, EMPLOYER, SELF-INSURED, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

CASE NO. 319 CRD-1-84Workers’ Compensation Commission
OCTOBER 15, 1987

The claimant was represented by Michael Sucoll, Esq.

The respondent was represented at the trial level by Ralph Russo, Esq., and Robert Murphy, Esq., Assistant Attorney General. No appearance was made or brief filed at the appellate hearing. However, Michael Belzer, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal.

This Petition for Review from the April 16, 1984 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the First District was heard October 25, 1984 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Frank Verrilli and Gerald Kolinsky.

FINDING AND AWARD

The Finding and Award of the First District Commissioner is affirmed and adopted as the Finding and Award of this tribunal.

OPINION

JOHN ARCUDI, Chairman.

Claimant, a school teacher at the Mansfield State Training School taught art education to mentally and physically impaired children. She sustained compensable injuries, February 26, 1974 and March 16, 1976, acknowledged by the respondent in various Agreements As To Compensation approved by the Commissioner for the Second District[1] .

The instant matter arises as additional Sec. 5-142(a) benefits[2] are sought for both injuries. The First District’s April 16, 1984 Finding and Award denied such full pay Title 5 benefits.

Claimant’s February 26, 1974 injury occurred when she slipped on snow while transporting art materials to her pupils. The March 16, 1976 injury occurred while claimant was locking a back door. Securing that door was necessary to prevent a violent resident from entering the area.

Sec. 5-142(a) makes a distinction between employees of mental health institutions and those involved in police or guard duties. For the latter, Sec. 5-142(a) benefits are awarded if injury occurs “while making an arrest or in the actual performance of . . . police or . . . guard duties. . .”. But for mental health personnel the injury must occur “while attending or restraining an inmate . . .”.

Here, the February 26, 1974 fall on the snow does not seem in any way to have occurred while attending or restraining an inmate. As to the March 16, 1976 event, claimant argues that locking a back door to secure and protect the area thus locked from trespass by a known violent inmate is the restraining of such an inmate. We cannot agree.

The claimant was securing a door so that the inmate might be restrained from trespassing. She is not involved in actually restraining the inmate in question. We think the statute requires a physical proximity between the employee and the inmate whom she is restraining or attending. Otherwise, the mental health coverage of the statute would be almost as broad as the police and guard duties section.

For that reason, we affirm the decision below denying Sec. 5-142(a) benefits.

Commissioners Frank Verrilli and Gerald Kolinsky concur.

[1] This matter was originally brought before the Commissioner for the Second District. He subsequently found himself to be disqualified and the Commissioner of the First District was designated to act in his place.

[2] Section 5-142(a) provides, inter alia, “If any member of . . . any institution or facility of the department of mental health giving care and treatment to persons afflicted with a mental disorder or disease, or any institution for the care and treatment of persons afflicted with any mental disorder or disease . . . sustains any injury . . . while attending or restraining an any institution . . . shall pay all necessary medical and hospital expenses . . . . If total incapacity results from such injury . . . . [h]e shall continue to receive the full salary which he was receiving at the time of injury. . . .”