Estate of Doe v. Department of Correction, 268 Conn. 753 (CT 5/11/2004)

• Decision Date: 11 May 2004
• Docket Number: (SC 16840).
• Citation: 268 Conn. 753
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: ESTATE OF JOHN DOE <I>v.</I> DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION.

Page 753

268 Conn. 753

ESTATE OF JOHN DOE

v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION.

(SC 16840).

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued September 25, 2003.

Officially released May 11, 2004.

Syllabus

The plaintiff, the estate of the decedent, appealed from the decision of the workers' compensation review board affirming the decision of the workers' compensation commissioner dismissing as untimely the plaintiff's claim for death benefits following the decedent's death resulting from acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent had contracted the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) during the course of his employment by the defendant as a correction officer who was a member of an emergency response unit. The decedent's membership in the emergency response unit resulted in his coming in contact with blood and other bodily fluids of prison inmates, who have a high HIV infection rate, while responding to fights, riots and other emergencies at the prison. The plaintiff filed a claim for benefits more than one year after the decedent's last date of employment, alleging that HIV was an occupational disease as defined by statute (§ 31-275 [15]) for correction officers, and, therefore, that the claim was governed by the extended three year limitation period provided by statute (§ 31-294c) for occupational disease claims, rather than the one year limitation period set forth in § 31-294c for accidental injury claims. The commissioner determined that HIV was not an occupational disease for correction officers and, therefore, the three year limitation period for occupational diseases set forth in § 31-294c was inapplicable. The commissioner dismissed the plaintiff's claim as untimely, and the review board affirmed that decision. On the plaintiff's appeal, held that, contrary to the commissioner's conclusion, HIV is an occupational disease for correction officers who, like the decedent, are members of emergency response units, and, therefore, the plaintiff's notice of claim was timely filed under § 31-294c; HIV is peculiar to and distinctively associated with the decedent's occupation as a correction officer in an emergency response unit because of the direct causal connection between the specific duties of his employment, which required him to interact with inmates with a high HIV infection rate and in a manner that greatly increased the risk of contracting HIV, and the disease the decedent contracted.

(One justice concurring separately; two justices dissenting in one opinion)

Procedural History

Appeal from the decision by the workers' compensation commissioner for the fourth district dismissing as untimely the claim for death benefits filed by the plaintiff estate, brought to the workers' compensation review board, which affirmed the commissioner's decision, and the plaintiff appealed. Reversed; further proceedings.

Joel T. Faxon, with whom were Michael Dennison and, on the brief, Michael A. Stratton, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Lisa Guttenberg Weiss, assistant attorney general, with whom were William J. McCullough, assistant attorney general, and, on the brief, Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).

Sullivan, C. J., and Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer, Vertefeuille and Zarella, Js.¹

Opinion

NORCOTT, J.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the workers' compensation review board (board) properly affirmed the determination by the workers' compensation commissioner for the fourth district (commissioner) that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is not an occupational disease² for certain correction officers employed by the defendant, the department of correction, and, therefore, the notice of claim filed by the plaintiff, the estate of John Doe, the decedent, was not subject to the extended three year limitation period set forth in General Statutes § 31-294c³ for occupational disease claims. We conclude that HIV is an occupational disease for correction officers who, like the decedent, are members of the defendant's correctional emergency response unit, and that, therefore, the plaintiff's notice of claim was timely filed under § 31-294c. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the board.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The decedent was employed as a state correction officer at the Bridgeport correctional facility (facility) from 1986 until 1991. In that position, the decedent was required to maintain security and ensure the safety of the public, inmates and staff within the facility. His duties of employment also included responding to medical emergencies, altercations and other disturbances. In addition to his regular duties of employment, the decedent was also a member of the emergency response unit, a special team of correction officers that responded to major disturbances and riots. When responding to such incidents, the decedent could be exposed to blood and other bodily fluids of inmates through splash incidents and other incidents that would cause contact between HIV infected body fluids of inmates and the decedent's skin or mucous membranes.

In April, 1992, the decedent was diagnosed with HIV, and in March, 1993, he died as a result of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). In March, 1993 the plaintiff filed a notice of claim with the workers' compensation commission alleging that the decedent's contraction of HIV was caused by his contact with inmates at the facility. The plaintiff's claim was filed more than one year after the decedent's last date of employment, and was, therefore, untimely under the one year limitation period set forth in § 31-294c for accidental and repetitive trauma injuries. The plaintiff claimed, however, that the claim was timely under the three year limitation period set forth in § 31-294c for occupational disease claims. The defendant disagreed, and filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for lack of jurisdiction.

The commissioner bifurcated the proceedings in order to focus initially on the question of whether the plaintiff met the jurisdictional requirements of § 31-294c. After several hearings, the commissioner found that HIV was not an occupational disease for correction officers and, therefore, the three year limitation period for occupational diseases set forth in § 31-294c was inapplicable.⁴ The commissioner denied the plaintiff's subsequent motion to correct the factual findings. The plaintiff appealed from the commissioner's decision to the board, which affirmed that decision. Subsequently, the plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the board to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1. This appeal followed.

The plaintiff contends that the board improperly affirmed the commissioner's determination that HIV does not constitute an occupational disease for correction officers. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that HIV is an occupational disease for correction officers under General Statutes § 31-275 (15) because it is both peculiar to the occupation and is due to causes in excess of the ordinary hazards of employment as such. The defendant contends, to the contrary, that the board's decision was proper because the plaintiff failed to prove a causal connection between the duties of a correction officer and the contraction of HIV. We agree with the plaintiff, and we conclude that HIV is an occupational disease for correction officers who, like the decedent, are members of the emergency response unit.⁵

As a threshold matter, we set forth the standard of review applicable to workers' compensation appeals. Filing "a notice of claim or ... satisfaction of one of the ... exceptions [contained in § 31-294c (c)] is a prerequisite that conditions whether the commission[er] has subject matter jurisdiction under the [Workers' Compensation] [A]ct." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kuehl v. Z-Loda Systems Engineering, Inc., 265 Conn. 525, 534, 829 A.2d 818 (2003); Figueroa v. C & S Ball Bearing, 237 Conn. 1, 5-6, 675 A.2d 845 (1996). "[B]ecause [a] determination regarding . . . subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is plenary." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lawrence Brunoli, Inc. v. Branford, 247 Conn. 407, 410, 722 A.2d 271 (1999); Anastasio v. Mail Contractors of America, Inc., 69 Conn. App. 385, 392, 794 A.2d 1061, cert. denied, 261 Conn. 914, 915, 806 A.2d 1053 (2002).

Section 31-275 (15) defines occupational disease as "any disease peculiar to the occupation in which the employee was engaged and due to causes in excess of the ordinary hazards of employment as such, and includes any disease due to or attributable to exposure to or contact with any radioactive material by an employee in the course of his employment." "In interpreting the phrase occupational disease, we have stated that the requirement that the disease be peculiar to the occupation and in excess of the ordinary hazards of employment, refers to those diseases in which there is a causal connection between the duties of the employment and the disease contracted by the employee. In other words, [the disease] need not be unique to the occupation of the employee or to the work place; it need merely be so distinctively associated with the employee's occupation that there is a direct causal connection between the duties of the employment and the disease contracted." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Malchik v. Division of Criminal Justice, 266 Conn. 728, 734, 835 A.2d 940 (2003); Biasetti v. Stamford, 250 Conn. 65, 72-73, 735 A.2d 321 (1999); Discuillo v. Stone & Webster, 242 Conn. 570, 578-79, 698 A.2d 873 (1997); Crochiere v. Board of Education, 227 Conn. 333, 352, 630 A.2d 1027 (1993); Hansen v. Gordon, 221 Conn. 29, 35, 602 A.2d 560 (1992). "Thus, an occupational disease does not include a disease which results from the peculiar conditions surrounding the employment...