CASE NO. 262 CRD-4-83Workers’ Compensation Commission
APRIL 27, 1987
The claimant was represented by Gerald Stevens, Esq.
The respondent was represented at the trial level by Robert Girard, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, and at the appellate level by Michael Belzer, Esq., Assistant Attorney General.
This Petition for Review from the September 12, 1983 Finding and Award of the Commissioner of the Fourth District was heard May 31, 1985 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Andrew Denuzze and Gerald Kolinsky.
FINDING AND AWARD
1-9. Paragraphs 1 through 9 of the Fourth District’s September 12, 1983 Finding and Award are affirmed and made paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Division’s Finding and Award.
WHEREFORE IT IS ADJUDGED AND AWARDED that claimant is entitled to full pay under Sec. 5-142(a) C.G.S. during the period of his total disability.
OPINION
JOHN ARCUDI, Chairman.
Claimant, an officer of the Connecticut Department of Corrections at the Bridgeport Correctional Facility, suffered a compensable back injury November 27, 1982 when a chair in which he was seated while on duty collapsed. This appeal is from the Fourth District Commissioner’s denial of Sec. 5-142 benefits. No dispute exists as to compensability. Rather the issue is whether claimant should receive full pay under Sec. 5-142 C.G.S., or chapter 568 benefits pursuant to Sec. 31-307, C.G.S. The trial Commissioner ruled that the claimant was not entitled to the full pay benefits provided by Sec. 5-142(a) because at the time of the injury he was engaged in guard duties which “were not hazardous” or “special duties required of a guard by virtue of the nature of his work.”
This “hazardous” or “special duties” criteria was the wrong standard for the application of Sec. 5-142(a). As we ruled in Parizeau v. State of Connecticut, 194 CRD-2-83
(1/22/87), that statute simply provides that the work involved be “in the actual performance of such police or guard duties.” The Commissioner found in paragraph 9 of his Finding that the injury was sustained “in the performance of his guard duties.” That is all that is needed to satisfy the statutory requirement.
Therefore, the decision of the Commissioner is reversed and the appeal is sustained. The matter is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Commissioners Andrew Denuzze and Gerald Kolinsky concur.
[1] Sec. 5-142. Disability compensation. (a) If any member . . . of any correctional institution . . . sustains any injury while making an arrest or in the actual performance of such police duties or guard duties . . . the state shall pay all necessary medical and hospital expenses resulting from such injury. If total incapacity results from such injury, such person. . . shall continue to receive the full salary which he was receiving at the time of injury subject to all salary benefits of active employees. . .