Vitti v. City of Milford

336 Conn. 654

249 A.3d 726

Antonio VITTI

v.CITY OF MILFORD et al.

SC 20350

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued February 27, 2020

Officially released August 24, 2020^*

Andrew J. Morrissey, Naugatuck, with whom, on the brief, was David J. Morrissey, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Scott Wilson Williams, Fairfield, for the appellees (defendants).

Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js.^**

ROBINSON, C. J.

This appeal presents a question of first impression in our workers’ compensation law, namely, whether a claimant who undergoes a heart transplant is entitled to a specific indemnity award for permanent partial disability under the Workers’ Compensation Act (act), specifically, General Statutes § 31-308 (b),¹ for the total loss of the claimant's native heart, or whether the award should instead be based on the rated function of the claimant's new, transplanted heart. The plaintiff, Antonio Vitti, who had been employed as a police officer by the named defendant, the city of Milford (city),² appeals³ from the decision of the Compensation Review Board (board) affirming the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner for the Fourth District (commissioner), who awarded him permanent partial disability benefits of 23 percent based on the function of his transplanted heart. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that § 31-308 (b) mandates compensation for the 100 percent loss of his native heart because his transplanted heart is akin to a prosthetic device and, therefore, not considered in any function rating for purposes of awarding permanent partial disability benefits. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the decision of the board.

The record reveals the following undisputed facts and procedural history. The city employed the plaintiff as a police officer from 1993 until his retirement in 2014. In August, 2010, the plaintiff began experiencing nausea, abdominal pain, and shortness of breath, which subsequently led to his diagnosis of giant cell myocarditis, a rare autoimmune disease. The plaintiff received a heart transplant on September 28, 2010. The heart transplant was successful, and the plaintiff returned to work in a part-time capacity in 2011, subsequently returning to a full-time schedule in 2012. As a result of the transplant operation, the plaintiff follows a daily medication regimen and has various activity limitations, including a reduced capacity to exercise and to travel via air to the same extent he could prior to the surgery.

In September, 2010, the plaintiff filed for workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to the Heart and Hypertension Act. See General Statutes § 7-433c. In determining the specific indemnity award to which the plaintiff is entitled,⁴ the commissioner issued a decision finding that the plaintiff had reached maximum medical improvement on November 21, 2013, three years after his successful heart transplant. Crediting the testimony of two medical expert witnesses and the plaintiff's description of his condition, the commissioner found that the plaintiff was entitled to an award of 23 percent permanent partial disability benefits.⁵

The plaintiff appealed from the commissioner's finding and award to the board, claiming that the commissioner improperly failed to award him 100 percent permanent partial disability benefits as a result of the removal of his native heart during the transplant procedure. The board affirmed the commissioner's finding and award, concluding that the commissioner had properly considered the function of the transplanted heart in awarding permanent partial disability benefits. The board disagreed with the plaintiff's argument that a transplanted heart should be treated as akin to a prosthetic device for purposes of awarding benefits. This appeal followed. See footnote 3 of this opinion.

On appeal, the plaintiff claims that, in awarding permanent partial disability benefits, the board improperly considered the functional capacity of the transplanted heart rather than deeming the removal of his native heart a 100 percent loss under § 31-308 (b). Specifically, the plaintiff asserts that the plain meaning of the phrase ‘‘the loss of the member or organ," as used in § 31-308 (b), refers to the complete loss of the native heart when it was removed during the transplant surgery rather than the function of the subsequently transplanted heart. As a corollary, the plaintiff contends that a transplanted organ is analogous to a postamputation prosthetic device and, therefore, should not be considered for the purpose of awarding permanent partial disability benefits. The plaintiff further argues that, even if the transplanted heart is considered an organ rather than a prosthetic device, we should interpret the word ‘‘organ," as used in § 31-308 (b), as limited to only the native organ.

In response, the defendants contend that the board correctly interpreted § 31-308 (b) in treating the transplanted heart as an organ rather than a prosthetic device. Consistent with well established case law requiring that permanent partial disability be evaluated after the claimant reaches maximum medical improvement, the defendants further argue that the board properly considered the functioning of the transplanted heart in upholding the commissioner's award of permanent partial disability benefits. We agree with the defendants and conclude that a transplanted heart is not akin to a prosthetic device; accordingly, the plaintiff's permanent partial disability benefits properly reflect the functional loss of use of his transplanted heart rather than the total loss of his native heart.

‘‘The principles that govern our standard of review in workers’ compensation appeals are well established. The conclusions drawn by [the commissioner] from the facts found must stand unless they result from an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally or unreasonably drawn from them. ... [Moreover, it] is well established that [a]lthough not dispositive, we accord great weight to the construction given to the workers’ compensation statutes by the commissioner and [the] board. ... Cases that present pure questions of law, however, invoke a broader standard of review than is ordinarily involved in deciding whether, in light of the evidence, the agency has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion. ... We have determined, therefore, that the traditional deference accorded to an agency's interpretation of a statutory term is unwarranted when the construction of a statute ... has not previously been subjected to judicial scrutiny [or to] ... a governmental agency's time-tested interpretation ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Coughlin v. Stamford Fire Dept. , 334 Conn. 857, 862–63, 224 A.3d 1161 (2020). Because the present case does not involve a time-tested interpretation, ‘‘[w]e ... apply plenary review and established rules of construction." Brennan v. Waterbury , 331 Conn. 672, 683, 207 A.3d 1 (2019).

‘‘When construing a statute, [o]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature. ... In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of [the] case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply. ... In seeking to determine that meaning, General Statutes § 1-2z directs us first to consider the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered. ... When a statute is not plain and unambiguous, we also look for interpretive guidance to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and [common-law] principles governing the same general subject matter ....

‘‘Furthermore, [i]t is well established that, in resolving issues of statutory construction under the act, we are mindful that the act indisputably is a remedial statute that should be construed generously to accomplish its purpose. ... The humanitarian and remedial purposes of the act counsel against an overly narrow construction that unduly limits eligibility for workers’ compensation. ... Accordingly, [i]n construing workers’ compensation law, we must resolve statutory ambiguities or lacunae in a manner that will further the remedial purpose of the act. ... [T]he purposes of the act itself are best served by allowing the remedial legislation a reasonable sphere of operation considering those purposes." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Balloli v. New Haven Police Dept. , 324 Conn. 14, 18–19, 151 A.3d 367 (2016) ; see, e.g., Brennan v. Waterbury , supra, 331 Conn. at 683, 207 A.3d 1.

‘‘At the outset, it is important to understand that the act provides for two unique categories of benefits—those designed to compensate for loss of earning capacity and those awarded to compensate for the loss, or loss of use, of a body part. ... Total or partial incapacity benefits fall into the first category. ... Disability benefits, also referred to as specific indemnity awards or permanency awards, fall into the second category." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Marandino v. Prometheus Pharmacy , 294 Conn. 564, 577, 986 A.2d 1023 (2010) ; see also Rayhall v. Akim Co. , 263 Conn. 328, 349, 819 A.2d 803 (2003) (discussing act's compensation for disability via payment of medical expenses under General Statutes § 31-294d in addition to specific indemnity awards). The second category of benefits, which are provided pursuant to § 31-308 (b), the provision at issue in this appeal, enumerates a series of members...