Gil v. Courthouse One, 687 A.2d 146
 WORKERS' COMPENSATION
 Nature and Grounds of Master's Liability
 Construction and Operation of Statutes in General
 k. Construction in favor of employee or beneficiary.
Conn.,1997
Workers' Compensation Act is remedial and must be interpreted liberally to achieve its humanitarian purposes. C.G.S.A. § 31-275 et seq.

Gil v. Courthouse One, 687 A.2d 146
Conn.,1997
Since Workers' Compensation Act is remedial statute, Supreme Court should not impose limitations on benefits provided for disabled worker that statute itself does not clearly specify. C.G.S.A. § 31-275 et seq.

 
Laliberte v. United Sec., Inc., 261 Conn. 181
Conn.,2002
By recognizing limitations not delineated by the legislature, a court risks denying the beneficent purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act. C.G.S.A. § 31-275 et seq.

 
Infante v. Mansfield Construction Co., 706 A.2d 984
Conn.App.,1998
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. C.G.S.A. § 31-275 et seq.

 0 times for this legal issue]
Laliberte v. United Sec., Inc., 261 Conn. 181
Conn.,2002
Workers' Compensation Act should be construed to further its humanitarian purposes. C.G.S.A. § 31-275 et seq.

 [Cited 0 times for this legal issue]
Tardy v. Abington Constructors, Inc., 71 Conn.App. 140
Conn.App.,2002
Workers' compensation legislation is remedial in nature and should be broadly construed to accomplish its humanitarian purpose.


Tardy v. Abington Constructors, Inc., 71 Conn.App. 140
Conn.App.,2002
As workers' compensation is remedial legislation with a humanitarian purpose, is provisions are liberally construed in favor of the employee.

Francis v. State, 741 A.2d 966
Conn.App.,1999
The terms "accident" and "occupational disease," as they are used in limitations statute governing the filing of workers' compensation claims, must be read broadly enough so that even an injury that is defined as stemming from "repetitive trauma" may nonetheless be deemed to fall into one of those two extant jurisdictional categories, as appropriate to the specific facts of each particular claim. C.G.S.A. § 31-275 (1990); § 31-294 (Repealed).




Casey v. Northeast Utilities, 731 A.2d 294
 WORKERS' COMPENSATION
 Nature and Grounds of Master's Liability
 k. In general.
Conn.,1999
Under Workers' Compensation Act, employee surrenders his right to bring common law action against employer, thereby limiting employer's liability to the statutory amount, and in return, employee is compensated for his losses without having to prove liability; Act compromises employee's right to common law tort action for work-related injuries in return for relatively quick and certain compensation. C.G.S.A. § 31-275 et seq.