Bergeson v. City of New London

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the Second Injury Fund was not required to reimburse the City of New London for cost-of-living adjustments paid in connection with survivor benefits under Connecticut’s Heart and Hypertension Act, General Statutes § 7-433c. The court concluded that such benefits are distinct from workers’ compensation benefits and that no express statutory authority required fund reimbursement. The court also held that the city had standing to raise its constitutional due process challenge but rejected that challenge.

Holdings

1. The Second Injury Fund is not required to reimburse a municipal employer for COLAs paid in connection with a claim under § 7-433c because those benefits are separate from and are not workers' compensation benefits for purposes of the express reimbursement authority in § 31-306 (a) (2) (A).
2. The city had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statutes because it was properly before the court on a nonconstitutional statutory-construction issue and was adversely affected by the statutory interpretation.
3. The statutes do not violate due process because, even assuming the city was deprived of a protected property interest, the statutes are rational means of advancing legitimate legislative purposes.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Connecticut General Statutes § 31-306 (a) (2) (A) requires the Second Injury Fund to reimburse a municipal employer for COLAs paid in connection with benefits awarded under § 7-433c.
2. Whether §§ 7-433c and 31-306 (a) (2) (A), applied retroactively, deprive municipal employers of property without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article first, § 10, of the Connecticut Constitution.
3. Whether the city had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statutes.

Disposition

affirmed