Hansen v. Gordon, 14237
Decision Date | 28 January 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 14237,14237 |
Citation | 221 Conn. 29,602 A.2d 560 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | , 60 USLW 2528 Elizabeth HANSEN v. Robert GORDON et al. |
David A. Kelly, with whom was Jeremy Booty, Glastonbury, for appellants (defendants).
Jason M. Dodge, Hartford, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before PETERS, C.J., and SHEA, CALLAHAN, COVELLO and BERDON, JJ.
This appeal, arising under the Workers' Compensation Act, General Statutes § 31-275 et seq., raises the following two issues: (1) whether hepatitis type B virus (HBV) is an occupational disease for a dental hygienist within the meaning of the act when the disease arises out of and in the course of her employment; and, if so, (2) whether a dental hygienist who has suffered no physical impairment or symptoms of the disease can be found to have sustained partial incapacity within the meaning of the act as a result of being a carrier of the disease.
The plaintiff, Elizabeth Hansen, (claimant) was employed by Dr. Robert Gordon, a dentist. The compensation review division affirmed an award of benefits from the workers' compensation commissioner to the claimant. Dr. Gordon and his liability insurer under the Workers' Compensation Act, St. Paul Insurance Company, (collectively, employer) took this appeal to the Appellate Court. We transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023. We conclude that, under the facts in this case, HBV is compensable as an occupational disease under the Workers' Compensation Act, and that the claimant sustained a partial incapacity as a result of being a carrier of the disease. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the compensation review division.
The employer, on appeal, concedes that the facts the commissioner found must stand. (Citations omitted.) Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division, 177 Conn. 107, 117-18, 411 A.2d 924 (1979).
We thus decide the issues in this case on the basis of the following facts found and conclusions drawn by the commissioner. The claimant had been employed by Dr. Gordon as a dental hygienist since 1980. In 1984, the claimant, her coworkers and Dr. Gordon began to wear masks and gloves due to their increased awareness of infection from communicable diseases. In 1984 and 1985, the claimant and Dr. Gordon received precautionary vaccinations against hepatitis. During March, 1986, the claimant's husband was diagnosed as having HBV. As a result of this diagnosis, the claimant was tested and diagnosed as being a carrier of HBV. On March 13, 1986, the claimant ceased employment as a dental hygienist when she and Dr. Gordon agreed that her condition posed a threat to patients.
Hepatitis is an inflammation of the liver and is usually manifested by jaundice. HBV is a contagious disease that is widespread in the community and is most commonly acquired through bodily secretions, such as blood, serum, semen and saliva. It can be transmitted through blood transfusions, sexual intercourse, or other direct contact with a contagious person in which bodily secretions are involved. Dental hygienists and other health care providers, whose work may subject them to contact with blood and other secretions, are at particular risk for contracting the disease. The commissioner determined that "[b]ased on all the evidence presented it is more likely than not that Claimant's infection with hepatitis arose out of and in the course of her employment."
In viewing the issues raised in this case, we are mindful of the remedial purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act and " 'that it should be broadly construed to accomplish its humanitarian purpose.' " Ash v. New Milford, 207 Conn. 665, 672, 541 A.2d 1233 (1988), quoting Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division, supra, 177 Conn. at 117, 411 A.2d 924. Nevertheless, we also recognize that the legislature did not intend to impose upon the employer liability for diseases contracted outside the work place, or to transform the Workers' Compensation Act into a general health and benefit insurance program that would compensate an employee for all contagious diseases.
A disease is compensable as an "injury"; § 31-275(8); (1) if it arises out of and in the course of the employment; § 31-275(12); and (2) if it is an occupational disease that is "peculiar to the occupation in which the employee was engaged" and "due to causes in excess of the ordinary hazards of employment as such." Section 31-275(11). 1
The employer does not dispute the commissioner's conclusion that "it is more likely than not that Claimant's infection with hepatitis arose out of and in the course of her employment." The first requirement has therefore been met. In Fair v. People's Savings Bank, 207 Conn. 535, 539-41, 542 A.2d 1118 (1988), we quoted with approval the following: "
The employer claims on appeal, however, that the claimant has not satisfied her burden of proving that HBV falls within the definition of an occupational disease. The employer argues that for the disease to be classified as "occupational" under the Workers' Compensation Act, it must be one where "the risk of acquiring the ailment arises only during employment." At oral argument, the employer further embellished this argument by claiming that contagious diseases present in the community at large must be excluded from coverage under the Workers' Compensation Act. These exclusions are much too broad and find no support in our prior cases.
Shortly after the Workers' Compensation Act was amended to its present pertinent language, 2 we had occasion to interpret the definition of "occupational disease" as being "a disease which is a natural incident of a particular occupation, and must attach to that occupation a hazard that distinguishes it from the usual run of occupations and is in excess of that attending employment in general." Glodenis v. American Brass Co., 118 Conn. 29, 40-41, 170 A. 146 (1934). In making this determination, we analyzed the statutory language requiring the disease to be "peculiar to the occupation in which the employee was engaged and due to causes in excess of the ordinary hazards of employment as such." Section 31-275(11). We concluded that this Glodenis v. American Brass Co., supra, at 40, 170 A. 146.
We have never held that a disease must be of the type that can be contracted solely in the work place, either in a general sense or from the claimant's particular type of employment. "When we referred ... to disease as being a 'natural' incident of the employment, we used that word in the sense that we have used it in defining proximate causation ... it imports not a forward look to determine what risks should have been foreseen, but a tracing back from the results to the circumstances out of which the disease sprang." (Citations omitted.) LeLenko v. Wilson H. Lee Co., 128 Conn. 499, 505, 24 A.2d 253 (1942). Therefore, the requirement that the disease be "peculiar to the occupation" and "in excess of 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, it 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." Russell v. Camden Community Hospital, 359 A.2d 607, 611-12 (Me.1976); see also Hendrix v. Linn-Corriher Corporation, 317 N.C. 179, 345 S.E.2d 374 (1986) ( ); Booker v. Duke Medical Center, 297 N.C. 458, 472-74, 256 S.E.2d 189 (1979) ( ).
We further note that since 1982, the workers' compensation review division has construed the statutory definition of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Flor v. Holguin, No. 22641.
...as an occupational disease for dental hygienists. Sirkin and Levine v. Timmons, 652 A.2d 1079 (Del.Super.Ct.1994); Hansen v. Gordon, 221 Conn. 29, 602 A.2d 560 (1992).5 An accidental injury is distinguished from an occupational disease in that the former generally results from a discrete ev......
-
Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Sullivan Associates
...also have noted the significance of legislative inaction following an administrative construction of a statute. See Hansen v. Gordon, 221 Conn. 29, 36, 602 A.2d 560 (1992) (worker's compensation review division's interpretation); Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Public Utilities Control Aut......
-
Discuillo v. Stone and Webster
...that there is a direct causal connection between the duties of the employment and the disease contracted." ' Hansen v. Gordon, 221 Conn. 29, 35, 602 A.2d 560 (1992)." Crochiere v. Board of Education, supra, 227 Conn. at 352-53, 630 A.2d In the present case, the workplace circumstances that ......
-
Crochiere v. Board of Educ. of Town of Enfield
...that there is a direct causal connection between the duties of the employment and the disease contracted." 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......
-
A Shifting Paradigm? Deschenes v. Transco and the Precarious New Landscape of Concurrently Developing Disease in Connecticut's Workers' Compensation Jurisprudence
...Conn. 206, 210, 575 A.2d 690 (1990)); Epps v. Beiersdorf, Inc., 41 Conn. App. 430, 433, 675 A.2d 1377 (1996) (quoting Hansen v. Gordon, 221 Conn. 29, 32, 602 A.2d 560 (1992)). 24. Casey v. Northeast Utilities, 249 Conn. 365, 383, 731 A.2d 294 (1999). 25. Deschenes v. Transco, Inc., WCC# 200......
-
Labor Relations and Employment Law: Developments in Connecticut in 1992
...disease due to, or attributable to exposure to or contact with any radioactive material an employee in the course of his employment." 18. 221 Conn. 29, 602 A.2d 560 19. 221 Conn. at 37, 602 A.2d at 564. 20. 27 Conn. App. 800, 609 A.2d 1034 (1992) (appeal pending). 21. The relevant portions ......
-
Workers' Compensation Developments 2009
...Id. at 713-14. 14. Id. at 713. 15. Id. 16. These include Estate of Doe v. Dept. of Correction, 268 Conn. 753 (2004) and Hansen v. Gordon, 221 Conn. 29 (1992). 17. see CONN. Gen. Stat. § 31-308(a) (2007). 18. see CONN. Gen. Stat. § 31-308(b) (2007). 19. 294 Conn. 564 (2010). 20. Id. at 568-5......