Clark v. Waterford

Excerpt

The defendant employer appealed to this court from the decision of the Compensation Review Board, which affirmed the decision of the Work- ers' Compensation Commissioner that the plaintiff's claim for benefits as a result of heart disease was compensable under the Heart and Hypertension Act (§ 7-433c). The defendant claimed that the board improperly affirmed the commissioner's award because the plaintiff was not a ''member'' of the fire department pursuant to statute (§ 7-425 (5)) before July 1, 1996, and, thus, was precluded from receiving § 7-433c benefits. The commissioner found that the plaintiff, who was hired as a part-time firefighter with the defendant in 1992, and as a full-time firefighter in 1997, was employed in 1992 for purposes of § 7-433c and, thus, was entitled to benefits. After the board affirmed the commission- er's decision, the defendant appealed to this court. Held that the board properly affirmed the commissioner's award: although §§ 7-425 and 7- 433c are both contained within part II of chapter 113 of the General Statutes, they do not concern the same subject matter and cannot be read together without reaching an absurd result, as § 7-425 defines terms related to the governance of a retirement fund provided by the state for participating municipalities and their employees, including the term member, who must be a regular employee who receives pay from a municipality that participates in the fund, and § 7-433c mandates that municipal employers pay heart disease and hypertension benefits to qualified uniformed members of paid municipal fire departments, regard- less of whether the municipality participates in the retirement fund; moreover, § 7-425 expressly defines terms ''except as otherwise pro- vided,'' and the definition of the term ''member'' in § 7-433c is such an exception to the definition of ''member'' in § 7-425. Argued April 12—officially released July 27, 2021