Worker’s Compensation Survivor Benefits

No separate claim is required for worker’s compensation survivor benefits, according to a Connecticut Supreme Court opinion to be officially released on February 2, 2016.

In McCullough v. Swan Engraving, Inc., two years after he left the job, the employee was diagnosed with an occupational disease. He timely filed a claim for worker’s compensation benefits. He died from the disease before his claim was accepted or any benefits were paid. The employee’s widow filed a claim for death and survivor’s benefits. The worker’s comp carrier eventually accepted the decedent’s claim for benefits. The worker’s comp commissioner conducted a hearing on the widow’s claim. The carrier argued the claim was untimely, having been filed more than a year after death and more than six years after diagnosis. The widow argued that the timely filing and acceptance of her husband’s claim satisfied the limitations period for all claims. The commissioner agreed with the widow. The carrier appealed to the worker’s compensation board, who concluded that the widow’s claim was untimely. The Supreme Court reversed on the widow’s appeal.

Arguments on Appeal

The widow argued that her claim was not time-barred by CGS § 31-294c because her husband’s timely notice of claim satisfied the statute and there is no requirement that she file a separate claim.

The carrier offered three arguments in opposition: (1) Section 31-294c(a) required the widow to file a separate claim for survivor’s benefits within the time provided in the statute; (2) The court should defer to the board’s “time-tested” approach of interpreting § 31-294c as requiring a separate, timely notice of claim; and (3)  Section 31-294c must be read with CGS § 31-306b, which in the carrier’s view requires a dependent to comply with the one year limitations period in § 31-294c.

Supreme Court’s Conclusions

The Supreme Court concluded that the plain language of § 31-294c rendered it inapplicable to the facts of this case and required only one notice of claim in any event. The court also noted that there was no provision anywhere in the entire act requiring a survivor to file a separate claim, much less providing a limitations period for such a claim.

As to the board’s time-tested approach, the court cited its own precedent: ‘‘Even if time-tested, we will defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute only if it is ‘reasonable’; that reasonableness is determined by ‘[application of] our established rules of statutory construction.’’’ The court concluded that the board’s interpretation was not reasonable under traditional rules of statutory construction and declined to defer to it.

With respect to § 31-306b, the court noted that the statute provides, as follows: ‘‘The failure of an employer or insurer to comply with the notice requirements . . . shall not excuse a dependent
of a deceased employee from making a claim for compensation within the time limits prescribed by subsection (a) of section 31-294c . . . .’’ The court rejected the carrier’s argument, saying that “the provisions of § 31-306b (c) to apply only in those situations wherein an employee is receiving workers’ compensation benefits from the employer prior to filing an official claim, such as cases where a collective bargaining agreement requires that such benefits be paid immediately.” Since this wasn’t that situation, § 31-306b did not apply.

Impact

The impact will be limited by what seems to me are the factually unique circumstances of the case. The fact that the worker’s compensation carrier accepted and paid the worker’s claim after the worker died seemed to factor heavily into the court’s decision that the widow did not have to file a separate survivor’s claim. I don’t think that happens too often.

About the Photo

The decedent was a photo engraver and his work exposed him to toxins. He developed disabling pulmonary fibrosis from this exposure and it ultimately killed him. The photo is of a rusting chemical barrel.