CASE NO. 364 CRD-2-84 365 CRD-2-84Workers’ Compensation Commission
DECEMBER 24, 1987
The claimants appeared pro se at trial and did not appear at the appellate proceeding.
The respondent-appellant was represented at trial level by Frank May, Esq., Montstream May.
The respondent-appellee was represented by Richard Newton Ziff, Esq.
This Petition for Review from the November 15, 1984 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Second District was heard February 21, 1986 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Frank Verrilli and Michael Sherman.
Case No. 364 CRD-2-84 and Case No. 365 CRD-2-84
were consolidated on appeal as they arose out of the same transaction and present the same issue on appeal.
OPINION
JOHN ARCUDI, Chairman.
Claimants were volunteer firemen for the respondent Town of Lisbon. They were injured June 25, 1983 when the Lisbon Volunteer Fire Department pick-up truck being driven by Thomas with Atterbury as passenger became involved in a collision. The vehicle was then en route to Taftville, a section of the City of Norwich. Lisbon and Taftville Fire Departments had a mutual aid agreement and Taftville had requested Lisbon’s aid in fighting a fire. The Lisbon Chief John Crees had therefore ordered claimants to go to a hydrant site in Norwich.
The Town of Lisbon has appealed the Second District’s November 15, 1984 Finding and Award holding Lisbon liable for benefits to claimants. Lisbon asserts Norwich should be liable for the admittedly compensable injuries pursuant to Sec. 7-314a, C.G.S. rather than Sec. 7-322a, C.G.S.
Section 7-322a(a) provides:
“Any active member of a volunteer fire company who offers his services to an officer or person in charge of another fire company which is actively engaged in fire duties, and whose services are accepted by such officer or person, shall be entitled to receive all benefits payable under the provisions of sections 7-314 and 7-314a. Such payments shall be made by the municipality in which the fire company of which such a fireman is a member is located.”
Section 7-314a(a) provides:
“Active members of volunteer fire departments shall be construed to be employees of the municipality for the benefit of which volunteer fire services are rendered while in training or engaged in volunteer fire duty and shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the workers’ compensation commission and shall be compensated in accordance with the provisions of chapter 568 for death, disability or injury incurred while in training for or engaged in volunteer fire duty.”
In a memorandum explaining his decision, the trial Commissioner found the two statutes to be in apparent conflict. However, he relied on the language of Sec. 7-322a
to hold Lisbon liable. We note that Sec. 7-322a was first enacted in 1965 and Sec. 7-314a in 1967. That prompted Lisbon’s argument that the later statute should govern if any apparent conflict or ambiguity exists.
However, the legislative history of Sec. 7-314a clearly indicates that its principal purpose was to upgrade volunteer firemen’s benefits and to place them under the aegis of the Workers’ Compensation Law. This 1967 law made them “subject to the jurisdiction of the workers’ compensation commission (to) be compensated in accordance with the provisions of chapter 568. . .”.
Section 7-314a and 7-322a must therefore be interpreted in light of the entire system of benefits provided in Title 31. Since 1931 the Workers’ Compensation Law has charged the original employer for benefits due a worker injured while on loan to another. That concept is now embodied in Sec. 31-292. Reading these three statutes together necessarily leads to the conclusion that Lisbon, the lending employer, not Norwich, the borrowing employer, is responsible for benefits due Atterbury and Thomas.
We think this conclusion is also supported by another Title 7 statute, Sec. 7-310, which grants to any firefighter “operating outside the jurisdictional limits of his fire department . . . the same rights, privileges and immunities . . . granted him when operating within the jurisdictional limits of his fire department . . .”
Therefore, the decision of the Second District Commissioner charging Lisbon with the liability to pay benefits is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
Commissioners Frank Verrilli and Michael Sherman concur.