McGowan v. General Dynamics Corp./Elec. Boat Div.

• Decision Date: 04 April 1989
• Docket Number: Nos. 13520,13519,s. 13520
• Citation: McGowan v. General Dynamics Corp./Elec. Boat Div., 556 A.2d 587, 210 Conn. 580 (Conn. 1989)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Charles McGOWAN v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION/ELECTRIC BOAT DIVISION, et al. Sebastian SEMATARO v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION/ELECTRIC BOAT DIVISION, et al.

Page 587

556 A.2d 587

210 Conn. 580

Charles McGOWAN v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION/ELECTRIC BOAT DIVISION, et al.

Sebastian SEMATARO v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION/ELECTRIC BOAT DIVISION, et al.

Nos. 13520, 13519.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 8, 1989.

Decided April 4, 1989.

Stephen C. Embry, Groton, for appellant (plaintiff in the first case).

Matthew Shafner, with whom, on the brief, were Carolyn P. Kelly, Groton, and Mark Oberlatz, Norwich, for appellant (plaintiff in the second case).

Lucas D. Strunk, with whom, on the brief, was James L. Pomeranz, Hartford, for appellees (defendants in both cases).

Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, COVELLO, HULL and MENT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

These joint appeals involve the relationship of disability benefits under two overlapping statutes, the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) and the Connecticut Workers' Compensation Act. The plaintiffs, Charles McGowan and Sebastian Semataro, were each injured while working for the defendant, General Dynamics Corporation/Electric Boat Division. ¹ Each plaintiff collected benefits under LHWCA relating to his injury that exceeded, in their totality, the amount to which each plaintiff was entitled under workers' compensation. Each then claimed an entitlement to recover additional scarring benefits, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-308(d), despite the general rule that payments under one compensation scheme are to be credited against benefits collectible under the other. Because LHWCA's compensation scheme does not include awards for scarring, the workers' compensation commission held additional benefits for this separate category to be separately compensable. The defendants were unsuccessful in their appeal of these scarring awards to the compensation review division.

On further appeal to the Appellate Court, the defendants prevailed in their contention that the awards for scarring were improper because a category by category credit scheme would result in impermissible double recovery in violation of federal law. McGowan v. General Dynamics Corporation/Electric Boat Division, 15 Conn.App. 615, 618-25, 546 A.2d 893 (1988). We granted certification limited, in each appeal, to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude, in the circumstances of this case, that disability benefits paid under LHWCA should be credited against the plaintiff's Connecticut disability benefits?" McGowan v. General Dynamics...