Newsletters
Risk Central
Digital EditionCourt Affirms Administrative Law Judges’ Discretion in Workers’ Compensation Cases
In a significant ruling for Connecticut’s workers’ compensation system, the state Supreme Court has determined that administrative law judges have the discretion to award ongoing temporary partial incapacity benefits to injured workers even after they’ve reached maximum medical improvement.
The case, Beulah Gardner vs. Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services et al., involved Beulah Gardner, a forensic treatment specialist at Whiting Forensic Hospital, who suffered a compensable work-related injury to her left wrist in April 2016 while restraining a patient. After reaching maximum medical improvement in March 2020 with an 8% permanent partial disability rating to her left wrist, Gardner’s employer sought to convert her temporary partial incapacity benefits to permanent partial disability benefits.
At issue was whether an administrative law judge has the authority to continue temporary partial incapacity benefits under Connecticut General Statutes § 31-308(a) after a claimant reaches maximum medical improvement and becomes eligible for permanent partial disability benefits under § 31-308(b). The Appellate Court had previously ruled that judges lacked such discretion.
The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the clear and unambiguous language of § 31-308(b) gives administrative law judges the discretion to award ongoing temporary partial incapacity benefits in lieu of permanent partial disability benefits after maximum medical improvement, up to the statutory maximum of 520 weeks.
“The statute provides that the administrative law judge ‘may,’ but is not required to, award permanent partial disability benefits under § 31-308(b) in lieu of other compensation, meaning that the administrative law judge has the discretion to award other benefits under the act, such as total or partial incapacity benefits, after the claimant reaches maximum medical improvement,” the court explained.
The court’s interpretation was supported by its 1943 decision in Osterlund vs. State, which interpreted nearly identical statutory language. The court noted that the Osterlund decision had never been overruled and has been routinely cited in workers’ compensation cases.
The Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services had argued that legislative history showed that administrative law judges lack the authority to award ongoing temporary partial incapacity benefits after maximum medical improvement. However, the court emphasized that when statutory language is clear and unambiguous, as it is in this case, it is inappropriate to consult legislative history.
The court’s decision recognizes that in some cases, there might be “a great disproportion between the amount of specific compensation provided and the actual effect of the injury, either from the standpoint of the employee’s earning capacity or the physical impairment.” In such situations, administrative law judges must “exercise sound judgment in deciding whether to award specific compensation on the basis fixed in the statute or to permit the weekly compensation for incapacity to continue.”
This ruling provides administrative law judges with important flexibility in addressing the unique circumstances of injured workers and ensures that the workers’ compensation system can be tailored to individual needs rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach when workers reach maximum medical improvement.
Read the court’s decision here. &
