Maghfour v. Waterbury

Excerpt

15 The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant city, sought to resolve a dispute 16 concerning a lien the city placed on certain settlement proceeds that 17 he had received as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred 18 in 2016. At all relevant times, the city was self-insured and paid for the 19 medical care that the plaintiff received in connection with the accident. 20 In July, 2017, the legislature passed an amendment (P.A. 17-165, § 1) to 21 a statute (§ 7-464) concerning group insurance benefits for municipal 22 employees that allowed a self-insured city that provides health benefits 23 for its employees to file a lien on the portion of any settlement proceeds 24 that represents payment for medical expenses incurred by a city 25 employee when such expenses result from the negligence or reckless- 26 ness of a third party. Later in July, 2017, the plaintiff filed an action 27 against the third-party tortfeasor who had caused the plaintiff to sustain 28 injuries in the accident. Thereafter, on October 1, 2017, P.A. 17-165, § 1, 29 became effective. In October, 2018, the city filed a notice of lien, claiming 30 a right to reimbursement for amounts that it had paid for the plaintiff's 31 medical expenses from any judgment or settlement the plaintiff might 32 receive arising from the accident. Approximately one week later, the 33 plaintiff settled his civil action against the third-party tortfeasor. The 34 plaintiff then brought the present action, claiming that P.A. 17-165, § 1, 35 did not authorize the lien filed by the city because the plaintiff's injuries 36 occurred and his action against the third-party tortfeasor was com- 37 menced before the effective date of P.A. 17-165, § 1. The trial court 38 granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and rendered judg- 39 ment thereon, concluding, inter alia, that the legislature did not expressly 40 indicate that it intended for P.A. 17-165, § 1, to apply retroactively to 41 pending actions and, there