Thursday, May 20, 2010

Repetitive Trauma Theory Carries the Day in Stress induced H&H Claim

A tip of the hat to my former partner, Jim Quinn, who taught me a lot about the ins and outs of Connecticut workers comp law. Jim successfully argued to the CRB that the trial commissioner erred in dismissing the claimants heart and hypertension claim without considering Jims theory that the stress was in fact a repeitive trauma for the purposes of tolling the statute of limitations. This is complicated stuff, folks. I would be happy to speak personally to any of you who need guidance in this area or who would like to know more about theories of repetitive trauma.

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Nomah!

This is the classiest thing my team has done in a long time.

Run Susan Run


And she is off. Judge Michael Sheldon ruled today in a 100 page opinion that Susan Bysewicz, who has spent a great portion of her time of late as Connecticuts Secretary of State, does in fact meet the statutory requirement of 10 years active practice as a lawyer.

I have held this view for some time. While most lay people equate lawyers with litigation, there are a vast number of dues paying lawyers in this State that never set foot in a court room. They work on contracts at the Aetna, or on real estate deals at the Phoenix, or in some other arcane area of the law that would drive me right around the bend. Nonetheless, they are every bit as entitled to refer to themselves as a lawyer as I am. It is no different with Susan B.

With all due respect to my friend Elliot Gersten for his blistering deposition interrogation skills, Judge Sheldon got this one right.

In other news, I really need to start entering these posts on a computer that has a working apostrophe and quotation mark key. If my English professors at Ohio Wesleyan were to read these, they would take away my degree.

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Timeliness of Claim: Emotional Distress in case of Minor Employee Sexually Assualted by Boss at Work

I had a hard time thinking of a title for this entry, and I am still not entirely happy with what I came up with, but its hard to capsulize, let alone imagine a scenario where a 13 year old (underage for employment in Connecticut) girl begins to work for a landscape contractor who then goes on to have sexual relations with her. The landscaper is ultimately arrested on statutory rape charges and the young girl begins to experience emotional distress and requires psychiatric treatment.
Some 6 years after this unhappy situation arose, it dawned on the childs parents---yes the same parents that let their 13 year old go take a job---that maybe this should be covered under workers compensation. They file a claim, citing the medical treatment exception to the 1 year notice of claim proivision under CGS 31-294C. The parents, through their lawyer, reason that inasmuch as the employer had to reimburse the girl her out of pocket expenses for counseling as a condition of his criminal case, he had in fact paid for medical care thus triggering the exception establishing compensability in a late notice case. The CRB did not buy it.

I expect a appeal. I also think that the odds are better than 50/50 that at some point, one of the Appellate courts in Conecticut will get swept up in the child sex abuse statute of limitations fever and deem the claim compensable.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of filing a timely claim for benefits. Time and time again, it seems, I have to tell a prospective client that they will be unlikely to prevail in their claim for a on the job ijury for the simple reason they did not follow the requisite steps and file a 30C Notice of Claim. If you get hurt on the job, it is essential that you speak with a experieced Connecticut workers compensation lawyer as soon as possible.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Compensability of workplace brawl a question of fact


In Fekieta v. Drill Masters, Eldarado Tool, Inc., the CRB was called upon to review the Trial Commissioners decision that a workplace fight between two employees was not compensable. Generally speaking, Connecticut law holds that if you are injured as a result of a fight at work, then that is not causally related to the job itself and thus is not covered for the purposes of workers comp. In Fekieta, that facts were somewhat unique and an argument was made that the fight between the employees was engendered by one worker interfering with the other doing his job. Under certain conditions, I can see this argument carrying the day however in this case, the trial commissioner simply did not find the claimant credible. Not surprisingly, the CRB did not disturb the decision. Questions of credibility are solely within the province of the trier of fact.

Conn. Senate OKs cop workers' comp in animal cases

From The Associated Press tonight


The Associated Press Wednesday, April 28, 2010; 7:48 PM
HARTFORD, Conn. -- The Connecticut Senate has approved a bill allowing police officers to seek workers' compensation for stress after using deadly force on mammals.
The bill stems from the police killing of a 200-pound pet chimpanzee named Travis that went on a rampage in Stamford last year and mauled Charla Nash, a friend of the animal's owner.
Senators passed the measure 29-4 on Wednesday. It now awaits House action.
Stamford Police Officer Frank Chiafari (chee-uh-FAHR'-ee), who shot the animal, told lawmakers he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder after the harrowing experience but his claim for workers' compensation coverage was denied.
Under current state law, an officer can receive mental or emotional impairment benefits after using deadly force against a human being but not an animal.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

CRB reaffirms Totalityof Factors Test

In Cruz v. 21 Catherine Avenue, the CRB reaffirmed its position that in analyzing whether or not an injured worker is an employee for the purposes of Connecticut workers compensation law, requires the trial commissioner to look at the totallity of factors annexed to the worker and the principal. The Totality of factors test is set forth in Hanson v. Transportation General, Inc., 245 Conn. 613 (1998).

If you or a loved one are injured at work ad there is a question as to whether or not the victim is an employee, and thus eligible for workers compensation benefits, the safe course is to consult and experienced, board certified Hartford workers compensation lawyer.