2 employment law court rulings from public federal records (2024–2026)
Stamford Police Dept appears in 2 federal employment-law court rulings on record. These cases sit within the broader workplace context. The set below covers rulings that produced written federal-court decisions; private settlements, EEOC charges resolved without litigation, and state-court cases are not included.
The defendants appealed from the decision of the Compensation Review Board affirming an award by the Workers' Compensation Commissioner for the Seventh District of total incapacity benefits to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had retired from his position as a police officer in the Stamford Police Department in 1999, shortly after he was awarded permanent partial disability benefits, and he became temporarily totally disabled in 2015. On appeal, the defendants claimed, inter alia, that the board improperly failed to determine that the plaintiff should be entitled, at a maximum, to temporary total disability benefits calculated using the minimum compensation rate as of the plaintiff's 2015 date of incapacity. Held: The board properly upheld the commissioner's denial of the defendants' request for a finding that the temporary total disability compensation rate should be based on the fifty-two weeks of earnings prior to the plaintiff's date of incapacity, which would have resulted in a compensation rate of zero dollars, as in cases in which there is a gap of time between the date of the injury and the date of incapacity, the compensation rate must be calculated using the date of incapacity, and, accordingly, pursuant to statute (§ 31-310 (a)), the plaintiff's compensation rate must be based on the prevailing wages of Stamford police officers at the time of the plaintiff's date of incapacity. The board properly determined that the defendants' claim that they were entitled to a credit against a certain increased permanent partial impairment award for any temporary total disability benefits paid after the plaintiff's date of maximum medical improvement was not ripe for review, as the com- missioner had scheduled further hearings to address the issue of credits due to the defendants and further factual development was necessary prior to any review by the board or by this court. Argued September 18, 2025—officially released March 10, 2026
The plaintiff appealed, on the granting of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which had reversed the decision of the Compensation Review Board. The board had upheld an award of statutory (§ 31-307 (a)) total incapacity benefits to the plaintiff in connection with injuries that he sustained during the course of his employment with the defendant police department. The plaintiff claimed that the Appellate Court had incorrectly concluded that he was not eligible for total incapacity benefits because his total incapacity did not occur until after his voluntary retirement and because he did not intend to return to the workforce. Held: The issue of whether a claimant is eligible to receive total incapacity benefits when the total incapacity occurred after the claimant's voluntary retirement from employment was resolved in the companion case of Cochran v. Dept. of Transportation (350 Conn. 844), in which this court held that a claimant who sustains a compensable workplace injury under the Workers' Compen- sation Act (§ 31-275 et seq.) is eligible to receive total incapacity benefits under § 31-307 (a) even when the total incapacity occurs after his or her voluntary retirement. Insofar as the Appellate Court did not reach the defendants' two alternative claims in its decision, this court reversed the Appellate Court's judgment and remanded the case to that court so that it could consider those claims on remand. Argued September 23—officially released December 24, 2024
Browse rulings involving similar workplaces.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The presence of an employer on this page does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.