Chambers v. Electric Boat Corp., 17709.
Decision Date | 18 September 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 17709.,17709. |
Citation | 283 Conn. 840,930 A.2d 653 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Mary CHAMBERS v. ELECTRIC BOAT CORPORATION et al. |
The plaintiff, Mary Chambers, appeals1 from the decision of the compensation review board (board) affirming the decision of the workers' compensation commissioner for the eighth district (commissioner) dismissing the plaintiff's claim against the defendants, Electric Boat Corporation and its insurer, ACE USA/St. Paul Travelers Insurance Company, for dependent's benefits under the state Workers' Compensation Act (state act), General Statutes § 31-275 et seq. The plaintiff claims that the commissioner improperly construed General Statutes (Rev. to 1979) § 31-294,2 which was repealed and is presently codified at General Statutes § 31-294c(a), to deprive the commissioner of subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim for dependent's benefits under General Statutes (Rev. to 1979) § 31-306(b),3 following the death of her husband, Peter Chambers (decedent). Specifically, we consider whether, under the limitations periods applicable in 1979, a dependent has filed a timely claim for dependent's benefits when the employee had filed a federal, but not a state, occupational disease claim during his life and died more than two years after the first manifestation of his disease. We answer that question in the negative and, accordingly, we affirm the decision of the board.
As set forth in the decision of the board, the relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. The commissioner dismissed the plaintiff's claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The plaintiff subsequently appealed to the board from the commissioner's decision dismissing her claim. The plaintiff claimed that the commissioner improperly had dismissed her claim on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the notice of her dependent's claim was timely under § 31-294c(a). The board affirmed the commissioner's decision, and this appeal followed.
The plaintiff claims that the board improperly concluded that the commissioner properly had interpreted § 31-294c(a) to conclude that the plaintiff's claim for dependent's benefits was untimely. Specifically, the plaintiff contends that: (1) the limitations period of § 31-294c(a) for dependents' claims is separate and distinct from the limitations period for injury claims, such that the timely notice of claim by the decedent in his own right is not a prerequisite to her subsequent dependent's claim; and (2) in the alternative, if the timely filing of notice by the decedent in his own right is a prerequisite to her subsequent dependent's claim, then the decedent's claim under the federal act also satisfied the notice requirement of the state act. We conclude that the timely notice of claim by the decedent is, under the facts of the present case, a prerequisite to the plaintiff's dependents' claim, and we conclude that the decedent's federal act claim did not satisfy the notice of claim required under § 31-294c(a).
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Fredette v. Connecticut Air National Guard, 283 Conn. 813, 820-821, 930 A.2d 666 (2007). Although the defendants contend that § 1-2z governs our review of § 31-294c(a) as it applies to the facts of this case, we find the statutory scheme "difficult to construe with complete consistency. . . ." Id., at 820, 930 A.2d 666. "Accordingly, our analysis is not limited, and we, therefore, apply our well established process of statutory interpretation, under which we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of [the] case. . . .
We have previously recognized that our construction of the should make every part operative and harmonious with every other part insofar as is possible. . . . (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 821-22, 930 A.2d 666.
The plaintiff first claims that the limitations period of § 31-294c(a) for dependents' claims is separate and distinct from the limitations period for injury claims, such that the timely notice of claim by the decedent in his own right is not a prerequisite to the plaintiff's subsequent dependent's claim. To the contrary, we conclude that the decedent's timely filing of notice was a prerequisite to the plaintiff's subsequent dependent's claim because the statute of limitations requires the filing of "some claim" within the applicable limitations period, and because the decedent lived beyond that limitations period without filing a claim within that period.
In Fredette v. Connecticut Air National Guard, supra, 283 Conn. at 822, 930 A.2d 666 we addressed the proviso language of § 31-294c(a), namely, "provided, if death has resulted within two years from the date of the accident or first manifestation of a symptom of the occupational disease, a dependent or dependents, or the legal representative of the deceased employee, may make claim for compensation within the two-year period or within one year from the date of death, whichever is later."4 As part of our analysis of the issue in Fredette, we reviewed, as a threshold matter, the operation of the statute absent the foregoing proviso. In so doing, we concluded that the statute of limitations applies "to all potential claims under the act, including claims of the employee's estate or his dependents." (Emphasis in original.) Fredette v. Connecticut Air National Guard, supra, at 824, 930 A.2d 666. (Emphasis in original.) Fredette v. Connecticut Air National Guard, supra, at 824, 930 A.2d 666.
We then elaborated that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Staurovsky v. City of Milford Police Dep't, 37670.
- Ciarlelli v. Hamden
-
Harpaz v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc.
... ... M.C.M. Stamping Corp., 29 Conn ... 942 A.2d 400 ... App. 441, 615 A.2d ... 123, 136, 661 A.2d 573 (1995); accord Chambers v. Electric Boat Corp., 283 Conn. 840, 845, 930 A.2d 653 ... ...
- Staurovsky v. City of Milford Police Dep't, AC 37670
-
Workers' Compensation Developments 2007-2009
...the [other party]." 4.Mankus, I07 Conn. App. at 589-90. 5. 283 Conn. 813, 930 A.2d 666 (2007). 6.Id. at 824, 838-39 (emphasis added). 7. 283 Conn. 840, 930 A.2d 653 (2007). 8. Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. §901 et seq. 9. 283 Conn. at 856. 10. 283 Conn. 1, 925 A.......