Connecticut General Statues Case Decisions

Workers’ Compensation Act is liberally construed in favor of employee and is to be interpreted with sufficient liberality to carry into effect its beneficial purpose and to prevent defeat of this purpose by narrow and technical definition. Infante v. Mansfield Construction Co. (1998) 706 A.2d 984, 47 Conn. App

Purpose of Workers’ Compensation Law is to compensate worker for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, without regard to fault, by imposing form of strict liability on employer.  Dowling v Slotnik (1998) 712 A2nd 396, 244 Conn. 781.

Under Workers’ Compensation Act, employee surrenders his right to bring a common law action against employer, thereby limiting employer’s liability to statutory amount, in return, employee is compensated for his of her losses without having to prove liability.  Doe v. Yale University (2000) 748 A.2d 834, 252 Conn.641.

Humanitarian and remedial purposes of workers’ compensation law counsel against an overly narrow construction that unduly limits eligibility for workers’ compensation, and thus courts do not construe the law to impose limitations on benefits that the law itself does not specify clearly.  Gartrell v Department of Corrections (2001) 787 A2d. 541, 259 Conn.29

Construing the Workers Compensation Act liberally advances its underlying purpose, i.e., to provide financial protection to the claimant and his family.  Laliberte v. United Sec., Inc. (2002) 801 A.2d 783, 261 Conn. 181.