CASE NO. 324 CRD-1-84Workers’ Compensation Commission
NOVEMBER 19, 1987
The claimant was represented by Jonathan L. Gould, Esq., Kestell, Pogue Gould.
The respondents were represented by James Pomeranz, Esq., and Richard Stabnick, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton Stabnick.
This Petition for Review from the May 4, 1984 Finding and Award/Dismissal of the Commissioner at Large acting for the First District was heard December 13, 1985 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Andrew Denuzze and Frank Verrilli.
FINDING AND AWARD
The Finding and Award of the Commissioner at Large acting for the First District is affirmed and adopted as the Finding and Award of this Division.
OPINION
JOHN ARCUDI, Chairman.
Claimant’s compensable injury occurred June 16, 1980. A Voluntary Agreement for 5% permanent partial disability of claimant’s back was approved March 30, 1982 establishing maximum medical improvement as of February 2, 1981. Claimant sought additional benefits under Sections 31-308a C.G.S. and 31-284b C.G.S.
The Commissioner at Large acting in the First District in his May 4, 1984 Finding and Award/Dismissal granted 11 weeks of additional compensation under 31-308a but denied 31-284b
benefits. On appeal claimant seeks continued 31-284b health and accident insurance coverage while receiving Workers’ Compensation benefits.
Claimant’s date of injury was before the October 1, 1982 effective date of Sec. 31-284b. The date of injury controls benefits which are due, Chieppo v. Robert McMichael, Inc., 169 Conn. 646 (1975). With a date of injury some two years prior to enactment of Sec. 31-284b, the trial Commissioner concluded Sec. 31-284b did not apply. Previous to October 1, 1982 the Connecticut statute governing this subject was Sec. 31-51h but that was held unconstitutional and of no effect. The Commissioner further concluded that Sec. 31-284b could not be applied retrospectively.
Claimant argues for a retrospective application of Sec. 31-284b. The general rule of statutory construction is that “[s]tatutes should be construed retrospectively only when the mandate of the legislature is imperative,” Kusha v. Respondowski, 3 Conn. App. 570, 575 (1985) (citations omitted). See Sec. 55-3, C.G.S. Claimant-appellant contends that the legislative history of Sec. 31-284b indicates an intent to apply the statute retrospectively. However, the intent of the legislature is discerned not from what the legislature meant to say but what it did say, Daily v. New Britain Machine Co., 200 Conn. 562 (1986). We see nothing in the actual language of the statute which would support such retrospective application.
Claimant’s other argument is that Stone Webster only affects employee benefit plans covered by ERISA and not those provisions of that statute which call for continued payment of accident and health insurance premiums. We do not agree. The court ruled that Connecticut was preempted from enacting Sec. 31-51h. That holding cannot so easily be distinguished.
We, therefore, affirm the decision of the Commissioner.
Commissioners Andrew Denuzze and Frank Verrilli concur.
Sec. 31-51h. No employer, private, municipal or state, shall cancel or withhold accident and health insurance or life insurance coverage of any employee or his dependents or cease to make payments or contributions at the regular hourly or weekly rate for full-time employees for each week of disability to an employee’s welfare fund as defined in subsection (h) of section 31-53 while the employee is eligible to receive or is receiving workers’ compensation payments pursuant to chapter 568 or is receiving a continuation of salary or wages under a provision for sick leave payments for time lost for on the job injury. Such accident and health insurance coverage may include but shall not be limited to coverage provided by insurance or directly by the employer for the following health care services; Medical, surgical, dental, nursing and hospital care and treatment, drugs, diagnosis or treatment of mental conditions or alcoholism, and pregnancy and child care.
[EDITORS’ NOTE: THE MARKER FOR FOOTNOTE 1 IS OMITTED FROM THE OFFICIAL COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT, THEREFORE THE MARKER IS NOT DISPLAYED IN THE ONLINE VERSION.](a) In order to maintain, as nearly as possible, the income of employees who suffer employment-related injuries, any employer, as defined in section 31-275, who provides accident and health insurance or life insurance coverage for any employee or makes payments or contributions at the regular hourly or weekly rate for full-time employees to an employee welfare fund, as defined in section 31-53, shall provide to such employee equivalent insurance coverage of welfare fund payments or contributions while the employee is eligible to receive or is receiving workers’ compensation payments pursuant to this chapter, or while the employee is receiving wages under a provision for sick leave payments for time lost due to an employment-related injury.
(b) An employer may provide such equivalent accident and health or life insurance coverage or welfare fund payments or contributions by: (1) Insuring his full liability under this act in such stock or municipal companies or associations as are or may be authorized to take such risks in this state; (2) creating an injured employee’s plan as an extension of any existing plan for working employees; (3) self-insurance; or (4) by such combination of the above-mentioned methods as he may choose.
(c) In the case of an employee welfare fund, an employer may provide such equivalent protection by making payments or contributions for such hours of contributions established by the trustees of the employee welfare fund as necessary to maintain continuation of such insurance coverage when such amount is less than the amount of regular hourly or weekly contributions for full-time employees.
[EDITORS’ NOTE: THE MARKER FOR FOOTNOTE 2 IS OMITTED FROM THE OFFICIAL COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT, THEREFORE THE MARKER IS NOT DISPLAYED IN THE ONLINE VERSION.]