Stickney v. Sunlight Construction, Inc.
Decision Date | 25 May 1999 |
Docket Number | (SC 15968) |
Citation | 730 A.2d 630,248 Conn. 754 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | BRIAN STICKNEY v. SUNLIGHT CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL. |
Borden, Berdon, Norcott, Katz and McDonald, Js. Jason M. Dodge, for the appellant (defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety Company).
John T. Scully, for the appellee (defendant Commercial Union Insurance Companies).
The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the workers' compensation commissioner lacked subject matter jurisdiction to open and modify a voluntary agreement filed by the defendant compensation insurance provider.1 Because we conclude that the commissioner did not have jurisdiction to open and modify the voluntary agreement, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (Aetna), filed a motion with the workers' compensation commission (commission) to open and modify a voluntary agreement in order to have itself replaced by the defendant Commercial Union Insurance Companies (Commercial Union), as the insurer responsible for payment of workers' compensation benefits under the voluntary agreement. The workers' compensation commissioner (commissioner) denied the motion, and Aetna appealed the decision to the workers' compensation review board (board), which reversed the commissioner's decision. On remand, the commissioner granted Aetna's motion to open the voluntary agreement. The board affirmed the decision, and Commercial Union appealed to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court concluded that the commissioner had lacked subject matter jurisdiction to open and modify the voluntary agreement and reversed the decision of the board. Stickney v. Sunlight Construction, Inc., 48 Conn. App. 609, 618, 711 A.2d 1193 (1998). We granted Aetna's petition for certification on this issue. Stickney v. Sunlight Construction, Inc., 245 Conn. 919, 717 A.2d 236 (1998).
The Appellate Court opinion sets forth the following facts and procedural history relevant to this appeal. "On February 7, 1985, [the plaintiff, Brian Stickney] was injured during the course of his employment when he slipped and fell on a patch of ice. Thereafter, [his employer, the defendant Sunlight Construction, Inc. (Sunlight)] filed through its insurance agent an injury report with Aetna. Aetna had issued a workers' compensation insurance policy to Sunlight for the period of April 11, 1984, through April 11, 1985, but canceled the policy for nonpayment of premium in December, 1984, prior to the date of Stickney's injury. Aetna failed to verify its coverage for this claim, however, and issued a voluntary agreement for payment of benefits to Stickney, which agreement was approved by the commission on June 2, 1986. It is undisputed that Aetna did not notify the board of commissioners of its cancellation of Sunlight's policy as required by General Statutes (Rev. to 1985) § 31-348.
Stickney v. Sunlight Construction, Inc., supra, 48 Conn. App. 612-13.
The Appellate Court rejected Aetna's argument in defense of the commissioner's decision, that "the commissioner had jurisdiction to consider Aetna's motion to open under the broad equitable powers provided to the commissioner in [General Statutes (Rev. to 1985)] §§ 31-315 and 31-278." Stickney v. Sunlight Construction, Inc., supra, 48 Conn. App. 614. In its opinion, the Appellate Court began by recognizing that the commission's subject matter jurisdiction is limited to that which is expressly granted by statute, and that the Workers' Compensation Act (act) "involves the legal relationship between employers and employees." Id., 616. In contrast, the issue to be decided were the commissioner to open the voluntary agreement, is one of contract law. As such, that issue was "independent of the rights of the injured employee and his employer," and, accordingly, beyond the jurisdiction of the commissioner. Id., 617. As support for this conclusion, the Appellate Court relied on our early case of Witchekowski v. Falls Co., 105 Conn. 737, 740, 136 A. 565 (1927), for the proposition that the commissioner lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine which of two insurers was liable for payments already made by the employer, where the question of "[w]hich of the two insurers would be obligated to make the payments consequent upon an injury would have to be determined by the provisions of the policies." Accordingly, the Appellate Court concluded that the commissioner lacked jurisdiction to open and modify the voluntary agreement in the present case. Stickney v. Sunlight Construction, Inc., supra, 618.
Before this court, Aetna repeats its equitable powers claim, citing General Statutes (Rev. to 1985) §§ 31-278, 31-298 and 31-315 for support. Aetna also argues that the commissioner has specific statutory authority to open the voluntary agreement pursuant to General Statutes § 31-342 and General Statutes (Rev. to 1985) § 31-275 (5) (C) and (E). Because we conclude that the commissioner did not have jurisdiction to determine the legal questions central to the motion to open, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.2 We begin by setting forth the standard of review applicable to workers' compensation appeals. " (Citation omitted.) Dowling v. Slotnick, 244 Conn. 781, 798, 712 A.2d 396, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1017, 119 S. Ct. 542, 142 L. Ed. 2d 451 (1998). Accordingly, our review in this appeal is de novo.
In addressing Aetna's claim, we are mindful of the jurisdictional limitations placed on administrative agencies such as the commission. "Administrative agencies are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and their jurisdiction is dependent entirely upon the validity of the statutes vesting them with power and they cannot confer jurisdiction upon themselves." Castro v. Viera, 207 Conn. 420, 428, 541 A.2d 1216 (1988). (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 426-27. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
DeJesus v. R.P.M. Enters., Inc.
...his [or her] employer for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment." (Emphasis added.) Stickney v. Sunlight Construction , Inc ., 248 Conn. 754, 762, 730 A.2d 630 (1999). If jurisdiction exists for the commissioner to find Marion liable, personally, as an employer and alter e......
-
Wiblyi v. McDonald's Corp.
...not the judiciary or the board, to make.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) 168 Conn.App. 106Stickney v. Sunlight Construction, Inc., 248 Conn. 754, 761, 730 A.2d 630 (1999) ; see also Leonetti v. MacDermid, Inc., supra, 310 Conn. at 217, 76 A.3d 168 ; Matey v. Estate of Dember, 256 Conn.......
-
Leonetti v. MacDermid, Inc.
...provide the commissioner with any specific jurisdictionover particular types of claims or questions.” Stickney v. Sunlight Construction, Inc., 248 Conn. 754, 765, 730 A.2d 630 (1999). In Stickney, an insurance company moved to open a previously approved voluntary agreement to settle an issu......
-
Holt v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals
...has jurisdiction to determine whether the administrative body had jurisdiction to issue its ruling. See Stickney v. Sunlight Construction Co., 248 Conn. 754, 756, 730 A.2d 630 (1999) (where workers' compensation commissioner lacked jurisdiction to open and modify voluntary agreement, Appell......