CASE NO. 932 CRD-2-89-10Workers’ Compensation Commission
FEBRUARY 26, 1991
The claimant was represented by Mark Oberlatz, Esq., O’Brien, Shafner, Bartinik, Stuart Kelly.
The respondents were represented by Michael Belzer, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, State of Connecticut.
This Petition for Review from the October 18, 1989 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Second District was heard September 28, 1990 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Frank Verrilli and George Waldron.
OPINION
JOHN ARCUDI, CHAIRMAN.
There is no factual dispute here. Claimant, a Correctional Food Service Supervisor 2, injured his back while lifting a box of supplies during food preparation duties at a State correctional institution in Niantic. The Second District awarded full salary benefits pursuant to Sec. 5-142(a).[1]
The State’s appeal contends full Sec. 5-142(a) benefits are not applicable as the injury sustained by claimant did not occur “while making an arrest or in the actual performance of . . . police duties or guard duties or fire duties or inspection duties, . . . or while attending or restraining an inmate of any such institution or as a result of being assaulted in the performance of his duty . . . .” Sec. 5-142(a).
Lucarelli v. State of Connecticut, 16 Conn. App. 65 (1988) aff’g 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 58, 262 CRD-4-83 (1987) is dispositive of the issue here raised. In Lucarelli, the Appellate Court specifically rejected this State argument, i.e., that for Sec. 5-142(a) to apply, the claimant must show “that the injury was sustained while engaging in hazardous duties.”
Simply stated, Sec. 5-142(a) provides special, enhanced benefits to special, enumerated groups of state employees . . . We do not agree with the defendant that the word “hazardous” must be inferred in a fair reading of the statute to render a reasonable and logical result. The classifications of state employees enumerated in the provision share a common characteristic: these employees, in the daily course of performing their duties, work in an atmosphere sometimes charged with emotion and stress, and face the possibility of confrontations with inmates, patients or arrestees, which confrontations often result in violence. It is not illogical that the legislature recognized this heightened risk factor in their employment benefit. (footnote omitted).
Id. at 69.
Based on our reading of Lucarelli, we affirm the October 18, 1989 Finding and Award. Additionally, pursuant to Sec. 31-301c(b), we grant interest at the rate permitted by statute on any amount remaining unpaid during the pendency of this appeal.
Commissioners Frank Verrilli and George Waldron concur.