Connecticut Court Restores Administrative Law Judge’s Discretion in Workers Comp

The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that an administrative law judge has the discretion to award a workers compensation claimant, after he or she reaches maximum medical improvement, ongoing temporary partial incapacity benefits in lieu of permanent partial disability benefits under the state’s law.

The high court ruling reverses both a 2024 judgment of the Appellate Court and an earlier Compensation Review Board ruling that favored the injured worker’s employer, the state Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, which argued there is no such discretion.

The Supreme Court justices found that the “clear and unambiguous language” of the law (§ 31-308) provides that the administrative law judge ”may” but is not required to award permanent partial disability benefits to a claimant after he or she reaches maximum medical improvement.

The court also found that, contrary to the employer’s argument, legislative amendments to the workers compensation law enacted in 1993 did not change the text or meaning of the statute relating to the administrative law judge’s discretion. Neither did the court accept that the legislative history of those amendments altered the situation.

In April 2016, Beulah Gardner suffered a compensable work-related injury to her left wrist while she was employed by the Department of Mental Health. The injury occurred as a result of Gardner’s having to restrain a patient at Whiting Forensic Hospital, where she worked as a forensic treatment specialist. Following the incident, Gardner was treated for her injury and was paid indemnity benefits. She eventually underwent a ”left hand trigger thumb release” surgery, but her pain nevertheless persisted. She also underwent a second surgery.

On May 21, 2020, her employer moved to reduce or discontinue payments, seeking to convert her indemnity payments from temporary partial incapacity benefits to permanent partial disability benefits on the basis of her surgeon’s opinion that Gardner had reached maximum medical improvement and had a light-duty work capacity.

On June 2, 2021, the administrative law judge found that Gardner had attained maximum medical improvement and approved her employer’s request to convert her indemnity benefits from temporary partial incapacity benefits to permanent partial disability benefits effective May 21, 2020. The administrative law judge claimed that he did not have discretion to award the plaintiff ongoing temporary partial incapacity benefits in lieu of permanent partial disability benefits.

On Gardner’s appeal, the Compensation Review Board agreed with the administrative law judge. Relying on the legislative history, the board found that the 1993 amendments to the state’s workers’ compensation laws showed that the legislature eliminated an administrative law judge’s discretion. The appeals court later affirmed the board’s decision, setting up an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Gardner relied on the express statutory language she said still gives an administrative law judge the discretion. She contended that the high court held as much in a 1943 case, Osterlund v. State, and that Osterlund is still good law. The high court agreed with her.

The Supreme Court rejected the analysis based on the legislative history, which it said might be useful if there were ambiguity about what the statute says. However, the court found the statute remains clear and unambiguous in granting discretion to an administrative law judge. The court said it does not read the 1993 amendments as impacting the clear discretion afforded to an administrative law judge.

“Although legislative history may be reviewed when there is an ambiguity in the legislative text, we will not rely on that history to create an ambiguity that is not apparent on the face of the statute,” the high court concluded.

Topics Legislation Workers' Compensation Connecticut