CASE NO. 57-CRD-6-81Workers’ Compensation Commission
DECEMBER 8, 1981
The appellant-claimant was represented by James Ferguson, Esq.
The appellee-respondent was represented by Robert G. Girard, Esq., Office of the Attorney General.
This Petition for Review from the February 24, 1981 Decision of the Commissioner for the Sixth District was argued June 19, 1981 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of Commissioners John Arcudi, A. Paul Berte’ and Robin Waller.
John Arcudi, Chairman
A. Paul Berte’, Commissioner
Robin Waller, Commissioner
FINDING AND AWARD
1-4. Paragraphs 1 through 4 of the February 24, 1981 Commissioners Finding are affirmed and adopted as Paragraphs 1 through 4 of this Finding.
5. The Alcoholism Treatment Center of the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington is an institution for the treatment of persons afflicted with a mental defect.
6. The claimant is therefore entitled to (Sec. 5-142-1a) benefits.
WHEREFORE IT IS ADJUDGED, DECREED, ORDERED AND AWARDED that:
A. The Decision of the Commissioner for the. Sixth District is reversed and the Respondent State of Connecticut pay claimant her full wages for the periods of total disability suffered due to the injury of February, 4, 1980.
OPINION
There is little dispute about the facts in this matter. Claimant at the time of her cervical spine injury was employed as a nurse in the Alcoholism Treatment Center of the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington. She was assaulted by an alcoholic patient on February 4, 1980 and suffered the injuries complained of.
The respondent State of Connecticut agrees that the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment and executed a Voluntary Agreement to that effect approved by the Sixth District Commissioner June 10, 1980. The agreement set claimant’s average weekly wage as $324.86 entitling her to a compensation rate of $216.58 plus dependency allowances for each of two dependent children. Claimant was totally disabled until June 1, 1980 or July 11, 1980 when she returned to work.
The respondent employer paid her $236.58 per week during her disability according to Chapter 568, but the claimant wishes to be paid her full salary and relies on Sec. 5-142(a) C.G.S.
Section 5-142(a) provides:
“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 defect . . . sustains any injury . . . while attending or restraining an inmate of any such institution or as a result of being assaulted in the performance of his duty . . . . He shall continue to receive the full salary he was receiving at the time of injury . . .”
The parties have conceded that the Alcoholism Treatment Unit of the University Medical Center is not a facility of the Department of Mental Health. The question then narrows down to whether that unit is an institution for the treatment of persons afflicted with any mental defect. The State argues that mental defectives are the same as mentally retarded persons and that therefore this unit does not comply.
The claimant points out as stipulated by both parties at the outset of the hearing in the district that the Alcoholism Treatment Center is part of the Division of Psychiatry of the Health Center. The parties further stipulated that the Alcoholism Treatment Center is a psychiatric inpatient center, directed and staffed by psychiatrists, psychiatric social workers and nurses with special psychiatric training.
In addition to these stipulations, the claimant presented testimony through its medical expert, a Professor in the Medical School, the Deputy Head of the Department of Psychiatry, Dr. William Fleeson. Dr. Fleeson responded to a question inquiring what kinds of mental defects did the patients in the Alcoholism Treatment Center have. He answered that they had all kinds “from severe mental retardation, wildly psychotic, dangerous people, intoxicated people who suffered from alternate states of of consciousness . . . . Okay, with psychotic people, schizophrenic people, depressed suicidal, homicidal . . .” Dr. Fleeson testified that the unit treated people with mental defects.
He was then asked to define the term “mental defect.” He stated it was an “old-fashioned term which means any mental aberration, or anything wrong with the thinking perception, understanding, — mentation. . .” Relying on the admitted facts about the facility’s being administered by the Department of Psychiatry and the doctor’s testimony, the claimant argues that the unit is an institution for the treatment of patients afflicted with a mental defect.
Unfortunately the Connecticut General Statutes do not, except for criminal law purposes,[1] define “mental defect” or “mentally defective.” There is a definition of “mental illness” and also of “mental deficiency.” Sec. 17-258 enacts the Interstate Compact on Mental Health into law. Article II of that Compact contains these definitions:
“(f) `Mental illness’ shall mean mental disease to such extent that a person so afflicted requires care and treatment for his own welfare, or the welfare of others, or of the community.”
“(g) `Mental deficiency’ shall mean mental deficiency as defined by appropriate clinical authorities to such extent that a person so afflicted is incapable of managing himself and his affairs, but shall not include mental illness as defined herein.”
In addition to the definition cited above, Sec. 17-176 contains a definition of “mentally ill person” which excludes those persons whose psychiatric disorder is due to drug dependence or alcoholism. This exclusion of persons suffering from alcoholism should not concern us because of the parties’ concession that this is not a facility of the Department of Mental Health.
Absent any other statutory definition, we must accept Article II(g) of the Interstate Compact. That section speaks of “mental deficiency as defined by appropriate clinical authorities.” We certainly have such a definition here by Dr. Fleeson. He testified unequivocally that the Alcoholism Unit treated persons with mental defects. On that basis we conclude that the Alcoholism Treatment Center of the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington is an institution for the care and treatment of persons afflicted with a mental defect.
Therefore, the decision of the Sixth District Commissioner is reversed and the Appellant’s claim for 5-142(a) benefits is granted.