Dubois v. General Dynamics Corporation/Electric Boat Div., 14375
Decision Date | 12 May 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 14375,14375 |
Citation | 607 A.2d 431,222 Conn. 62 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Joan DUBOIS v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION/ELECTRIC BOAT DIVISION. |
John W. Greiner, New London, for appellant (defendant).
Nathan Julian Shafner, Norwich, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before PETERS, C.J., and SHEA, GLASS, COVELLO and SANTANIELLO, JJ.
This is an appeal by the defendant, General Dynamics Corporation/Electric Boat Division, from a decision of the compensation review division (review division) affirming an award of the workers' compensation commissioner (commissioner) for the second district. The plaintiff is Joan Dubois, widow of the deceased, Arthur Dubois.
The facts are essentially undisputed. The plaintiff married Arthur Dubois on June 30, 1956. From October 11, 1958, through November 12, 1988, Arthur Dubois was employed by the defendant. Dubois was totally disabled from October 20, 1988, through November 12, 1988. On November 12, 1988, Dubois died of respiratory failure and lung cancer. At the time of Dubois' death, the plaintiff was living with him and was wholly or mainly supported by him. On October 6, 1989, a notice of claim for widow's benefits was served upon the defendant via certified mail. On October 10, 1989, a notice of claim was served upon the commissioner. On October 27, 1989, one of the defendant's insurers filed a notice of intention to contest liability.
On March 9, 1990, the plaintiff filed a motion to preclude the defendant from contesting her right to receive benefits. This motion was dismissed on May 3, 1990. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a motion to correct this ruling, which was granted by the commissioner on August 3, 1990. Thereafter, the commissioner granted the motion to preclude, and later awarded benefits to the plaintiff. The defendant appealed this decision to the review division, which affirmed the commissioner's ruling.
The defendant has appealed the review division's decision, claiming that it improperly: (1) concluded that the notice of claim given in the present case satisfied the address requirements of General Statutes § 31-294; 1 and (2) failed to apply General Statutes § 31-297(b), Public Acts 1990, No. 90-116, § 9, 2 in rendering its decision. We transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023. We affirm the decision of the review division.
The defendant first argues that the notice of claim given pursuant to General Statutes § 31-294 was insufficient to preclude its defenses under General Statutes § 31-297(b). The defendant further argues that since the notice of claim was deficient, the commissioner was without jurisdiction to grant the plaintiff's motion to preclude. An understanding of the relevant statutory provisions is necessary in order to evaluate this claim properly.
Section 31-294(a) provides in pertinent part: (Emphasis added.) Section 31-297(b) provides in pertinent part: (Emphasis added.) "Although the phrase, 'written notice of claim,' in § 31-297(b) does not specifically refer to the phrase, 'written notice of claim for compensation,' in § 31-294, it is clear that both statutory sections refer to the same notice." Pelletier v. Caron Pipe Jacking, Inc., 13 Conn.App. 276, 280, 535 A.2d 1321, cert. denied, 207 Conn. 805, 540 A.2d 373 (1988).
According to the defendant, the notice of claim was inadequate in that "no address at all was provided to identify the employee" and that "[o]nly the address of the person in whose interest compensation was claimed was provided." A copy of the notice at issue reveals that the address was provided, as follows:
Upon consideration of the facts of this case, and the policy behind the § 31-297(b) preclusion, we conclude that this notice satisfied the requirements of § 31-294. ' ' Ash v. New Milford, 207 Conn. 665, 672-73, 541 A.2d 1233 (1988).
When these principles are applied to the present case, it is clear that the notice was sufficient to allow the defendant to make a timely investigation of the claim. The plaintiff, Joan Dubois, has the same last name as the deceased employee, Arthur Dubois. The plaintiff states in her notice of claim that she is the widow of the deceased employee, and she provides the address of their family domicile as the proper place to make an inquiry. The notice leaves no doubt that this is a claim for death benefits, as the cause of injury refers to: "Exposure to lung irritants/asbestosis that caused death DOD 11-12-88 Lung Cancer." In light of these facts, we hold that the notice of claim at issue substantially complied with § 31-294 and that therefore, the commissioner had jurisdiction to grant the plaintiff's motion to preclude. See Collins v. West Haven, 210 Conn. 423, 555 A.2d 981 (1989) ( ). We further find that under these facts, the purposes of § 31-297(b) were not violated by precluding the defendant's defenses.
The defendant next argues that the review division should have considered the adequacy of the plaintiff's notice of claim filed on October 6, 1989, according to the requirements of § 31-297(b) Public Acts 1990, No. 90-116, § 9. The amendment added to § 31-297(b) as of October 1, 1990, the provision that "the employer shall not be conclusively presumed to have accepted compensability when the written notice of claim ... fails to include a warning that the employer shall be precluded from contesting liability unless a notice contesting liability is filed within the time period set forth in this section." The defendant argues that the amended statute should be applied retroactively, and that since the notice of claim at issue did not contain the warning to the employer now required by § 31-297(b), the decision of the review division must be reversed. Although this issue was not raised before the review division, the defendant argues that w...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Discuillo v. Stone and Webster
...majority on this panel. That is a construction that we have consistently applied over the years. See, e.g., Dubois v. General Dynamics Corp., 222 Conn. 62, 67, 607 A.2d 431 (1992) ("[w]e have also stated that [w]e are mindful of the principles underlying Connecticut practice in [workers'] c......
-
Marandino v. Prometheus Pharmacy
...failure to frame her application for total incapacity benefits as a motion to open or modify under § 31-315. Dubois v. General Dynamics Corp., 222 Conn. 62, 67, 607 A.2d 431 (1992) ("[w]e are mindful of the principles underlying Connecticut practice in workmen's compensation cases: that the......
-
Skrzypiec v. Noonan
...the parties. Cahill v. Board of Education, supra [187 Conn. at], 100 ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dubois v. General Dynamics Corp., 222 Conn. 62, 68-69, 607 A.2d 431 (1992). The plaintiff has pointed to no exceptional circumstances in the present case and, accordingly, we decline ......
-
Capers v. Lee
...219 Conn. 657, 671, 594 A.2d 958 (1991); Skrzypiec v. Noonan, 228 Conn. 1, 14-15, 633 A.2d 716 (1993); Dubois v. General Dynamics Corp., 222 Conn. 62, 68-69, 607 A.2d 431 (1992)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lynch v. Granby Holdings, Inc., 230 Conn. 95, 98, 644 A.2d 325 (1994). This......