Source: https://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/2007/5166crb.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:30:37+00:00

Document:
Lopa v. Brinker International, Inc.
The claimant was represented by Matthew E. Dodd, Esq., Dodd, Lessack, Dalton & Dodd, LLC, 700 West Johnson Avenue, Cheshire, CT 06410.
The respondents were represented by Marian Yun, Esq., Law Offices of Rosenbaum & Vollono, 655 Winding Brook Drive, Glastonbury, CT 06033.
The respondent Second Injury Fund was represented by J. Sarah Posner, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120.
This Petition for Review from the November 22, 2006 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Sixth District was heard June 15, 2007 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Amado J. Vargas and Scott A. Barton.
JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. This appeal concerns the application of the statute on concurring employment. The claimant is employed both at two restaurants as well as by the Postal Service. She sought to have her wages as a postal worker included in the calculation of weekly disability benefits. The trial commissioner concluded that as the federal government is not an employer within the scope of Chapter 568, the claimant’s disability benefits could not be based on what she earned at that job. The claimant has appealed. We agree with the trial commissioner on this issue; we uphold his ruling and dismiss this appeal.
Ms. Lopa’s claim commenced on July 13, 2004 when she injured her back while wiping down a table at the Chili’s Restaurant in Southington, which is owned by the respondent Brinker International, Inc. The parties have stipulated that this was a compensable injury. A hearing was held before the commissioner for the Sixth District on November 21, 2006 to consider the issue of apportionment. In calculating the amount of contribution from concurrent employment as per § 31-310(a) C.G.S.,1 the claimant stated her earnings over the prior four weeks before the accident at Chili’s were $623.47; her earnings at Timothy’s Tavern in Plainville were $710.36, and she had earned $3,842.08 as a postal worker during this period.2 Respondents’ Exhibits 1-3. The claimant sought to include the postal wages as part of the calculation of concurrent employment benefits, the respondent Second Injury Fund opposed this relief.
In his Finding and Award dated November 22, 2006 the trial commissioner determined that the case of Chodkowski v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 4, 736 CRD-3-88-5 (December 18, 1989) was binding precedent on this issue and prevented the use of wages earned in federal employment in calculating the average weekly wage compensation rate.3 The claimant has appealed asserting that it was error for the trial commissioner to rely on the Chodkowski case. Our analysis indicates that this was a proper reliance by the trial commissioner on the concept of stare decisis.
In Chodkowski the claimant was receiving payments from the U.S. Army Reserve at the time she was injured. We determined that since the federal government is not an “employer” within the scope of Chapter 568, that wages from federal employment could not be used to calculate a compensation rate. We rejected an effort to define the federal government as a “public corporation within the state” for the purpose of concurrent employment, determining “[s]uch an interpretation is inconceivable in the light of two centuries of constitutional law and the problems engendered by federal state relations.” Id. In the present case, the claimant also is seeking to add income from federal employment to her state benefits. Since we find no difference between Ms. Chodkowski’s claim and Ms. Lopa’s, we are compelled to reach the same result. “In Mitchell v. J.B. Retail Inventory Specialists, 3458 CRB-2-96-10 (March 31, 1998) fn.1, we held ‘Stare decisis, although not an end in itself, serves the important function of preserving stability and certainty in the law. Accordingly, ‘a court should not overrule its earlier decisions unless the most cogent reasons and inescapable logic require it. Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc., p. 226.’ Herald Publishing Co. v. Bill, 142 Conn. 53, 62 (1955).’” Chambers v. General Dynamics Corp./Electric Boat Division, 4952 CRB-8-05-6 (June 7, 2006).
The claimant offers two arguments for not applying Chodkowski in this matter. She argues the Chodkowski case can be distinguished as dealing with military employment. While both this case and Lemieux v. General Dynamics Corp./Electric Boat Division, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 383, 2077 CRB-2-94-6 (October 5, 1995) deal with military employees, these decisions do not limit their application to military staffers, and the jurisdictional issues involved are equally applicable to civilians. The claimant also argues that to limit the compensation rate to omit concurrent federal employment would be incompatible with the purpose of our statute as it is “remedial in nature.” We rejected such an effort to look past our jurisdictional limitations based on humanitarian concerns in Bardales v. Christi Cleaning Service Corp., 5053 CRB-2-06-2 (December 21, 2006) and Hudgens v. Goldy’s Restaurant, 4997 CRB-2-05-9 (December 21, 2006). In those decisions we denied the effort of those claimants to include their wages from the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation so as to enhance their compensation award. “The humanitarian purpose of the Act discussed in cases such as Davis v. Forman School, 54 Conn. App. 841, 844-45 (1999), does not provide authority for us to create jurisdiction where it does not exist.” Hudgens, supra. Neither the United States Postal Service nor the Foxwoods Casino are within the jurisdiction of this Commission and we must be consistent in applying the same standard to § 31-310 C.G.S. cases to similar sets of facts.
We therefore uphold the trial commissioner and dismiss this appeal. Commissioners Amado J. Vargas and Scott A. Barton concur in this opinion.

References: v. 
 § 31
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 31