Was Post-Retirement Total Incapacity Compensable in Connecticut?

New Haven, CT (WorkersCompensation.com) – The Connecticut Supreme Court recently addressed whether an employee may obtain workers’ compensation benefits for total incapacity that occurs after he retires. It was the first time the court addressed the issue.

In the case, an employee for the department of transportation injured his back in 1994 while lifting a 300- to 400-pound tractor-trailer tire over a barrier on Interstate 84. He underwent surgeries and pain management. He received workers’ compensation benefits.

In 2003, he accepted an early retirement package. He was 54 years old and had no intention of returning to the workforce.

While he left his job, he did not, unfortunately, leave behind his back condition. It continued to plague him and deteriorate. The condition became so severe that, in 2015, he sought total incapacity benefits. Ultimately, an appeals court denied benefits, and the employee appealed.

Section 31-307(a) provides in relevant part: "If any injury for which compensation is provided … results in total incapacity to work, the injured employee shall be paid a weekly compensation equal to seventy-five per cent of the injured employee's average weekly earnings as of the date of the injury.”

The employer argued that because the total incapacity occurred after the employee retired, and because he had no intention of returning to work, the provision did not apply.

Was retirement a roadblock to the transportation workers’ total incapacity benefits?

A. Yes. His total incapacity was the result of the back injury he sustained lifting the tires.

B. No. Because the purpose of the statute is to replace wages, an employee's injury cannot result in total incapacity to work if he retires and willingly chooses not to work.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Cochran v. Department of Transp., No. SC 20940 (Conn. 12/24/24), which held that total incapacity benefits are available even to employees whose total incapacity occurs post-retirement.

The court rejected the employer’s argument that the employee was not entitled to total incapacity benefits because the incapacity occurred after he left the workforce. It pointed out that there is nothing in the statute to suggest such a limitation, and that the legislature could easily have said so if it meant to place such a limitation in the law. The statute, instead, requires that the workplace injury result in total incapacity for benefits to be available. 

Further, the court’s decision did not collide with the purposes of the statute, the court stated. It acknowledged the employer’s argument that there were no wages to replace given that the employee was retired. The court, however, noted that wage replacement is not the only purpose of the statute. Another purpose is to compensate an employee for lack of earning capacity. 

Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.

Share This Article: