Court Opinion

ID: 9735093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:00:57.507911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:55.191639
License: Public Domain

House, C. J.
(dissenting). I do not agree with the majority opinion and would hold that the workmen’s compensation commissioner and the Superior Court both correctly decided that the defendant employer was not preeluded from contesting liability under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The majority opinion holds that the defendants were precluded on procedural grounds from contesting liability; so it was unnecessary for that opinion to discuss on its merits the issue of liability and, accordingly, it properly refrained from doing so. Since I do not concur with the holding that the defendants were for procedural reasons precluded from contesting the merits of the plaintiff’s claim, I think that issue is not moot and it is pertinent in this dissenting opinion to comment also on the merits of the issue of liability. This dissenting opinion, accordingly longer than usual, requires a discussion of two separate issues—preclusion to contest liability and the court’s decision on the merits of the issue of liability.
I
Preclusion
The majority opinion construes § 31-297 (b) of the General Statutes to deny to the defendants not only the right to contest liability and be heard on the merits of whatever defenses may be available to *352them but to correct whatever “deficiencies” there might be in the notice that they were contesting liability. Section 31-297 (b) is quoted in full in the majority opinion and it is unnecessary to repeat it in full here but it is important to bear in mind the specific language which makes provision for preclusion. The statute provides that when an employer contests liability to pay a claim for workmen’s compensation he shall within twenty days of receipt of notice of the claim file with the commissioner a notice stating that the right to compensation is contested, the name of the claimant, the name of the employer, the date of the alleged injury or death and the specific grounds on which the right to compensation is contested. The statute then provides: “If the employer or his legal representative fails to file the notice contesting liability within the time prescribed herein, the employer shall be conclusively presumed' to have accepted the compensability of such alleged injury or death and shall have no right thereafter to contest the employee’s right to receive compensation on any grounds or the extent of his disability.” It should be noted that the sole stated statutory ground for preclusion of the right to present a defense to a claim is “ [i]f the employer or his legal representative fails to file the notice contesting liability within the time prescribed.” The statute does not state any ground for preclusion other than a failure to file within the time limited the notice contesting liability. It does not state that a defendant is precluded from contesting liability if a timely-filed notice contesting liability fails to state the name of the claimant or the name of the employer or the date of the alleged injury or the grounds for contesting liability with sufficient specificity. The majority opinion, nevertheless, reads into the statute words which I do not *353find there and which, in effect, add language to the statute to preclude the offering of a defense not only if the employer fails to file a timely notice contesting liability but also if the defendant’s stated reasons for contesting liability are not stated with sufficient specificity. It holds that a lack of sufficient specificity in the stated grounds for contesting liability shall have the same result as the failure to file any notice whatsoever—and this despite the necessary concession contained in the opinion’s understatement that “[ajdmittedly, the statute does not unequivocally dictate that a deficient notice of disclaimer be treated as no notice whatsoever.” It finds support for this holding in “the construction which the language and design of the statute support.” I cannot reconcile such a holding with our well-established principles of statutory construction. “In the interpretation of a statute, a radical departure from an established policy cannot be implied. It must be expressed in unequivocal language. Miller v. Colonial Forestry Co., 73 Conn. 500, 505, 48 A. 98; Antman v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 117 Conn. 230, 236, 167 A. 715; 50 Am. Jur. 280 [Statutes, §299]; see 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction (3d Ed.) § 4507.” Jennings v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 140 Conn. 650, 667, 103 A.2d 535. “When the language used in a statute is clear and unambiguous, its meaning is not subject to modification by construction. State v. Simmons, 155 Conn. 502, 504, 234 A.2d 835; Hurlbut v. Lemelin, 155 Conn. 68, 73, 230 A.2d 36. It is not the function of courts to read into clearly expressed legislation provisions which do not find expression in its words; Lenox Realty Co. v. Hackett, 122 Conn. 143, 150, 187 A. 895 ... . The statute must be applied as its words direct. Obuchowski v. Dental Commission, 149 Conn. 257, *354265, 178 A.2d 537.” Dental Commission v. Tru-Fit Plastics, Inc., 159 Conn. 362, 365, 269 A.2d 265. “It is the expressed intent of the legislature which controls, and that intent is to be found in the meaning of what it says.” Adams v. Vaill, 158 Conn. 478, 483, 262 A.2d 169. “We cannot speculate upon any supposed intention not appropriately expressed in the language of the act itself or restrict the ordinary import of the words therein used.” Mad River Co. v. Wolcott, 137 Conn. 680, 688, 81 A.2d 119. I view with particular concern the holding implicit in the majority opinion that a party may be deprived of a fundamental right, such as that to present a valid defense and contest liability, because he relied on the express language of a statute and was unaware of some contrary legislative design or intent which the language of the statute did not disclose and of which design or intent he could not be aware without a study of the legislative discussion and proceedings leading to the adoption of the statute. To me the imposition of such a burden is intolerable.
The notice filed by the defendants pursuant to the statute stated as the ground for contesting liability: “We deny a compensable accident or injury.” In my opinion this notice substantially complied with the statutory directive that the notice of contest should state “the specific grounds on which the right to compensation is contested.” Although the notice disclaiming liability would have more fully complied with the statutory direction of specificity if it had been more detailed, the denial of a “compensable” accident or injury substantially narrowed the possibly contested issues to the single one of whether the injury alleged was “compensable” under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Acei*355dental bodily injury has been defined as “a localized abnormal condition of the living body directly and contemporaneously caused by accident” and “personal injury” is practically synonymous with “accidental bodily injury.” Galluzzo v. State, 111 Conn. 188, 192, 193, 149 A. 778. The expanded term “compensable personal injury” is a personal injury “which arises out of and in the course of the employment and produces an incapacity to work for the requisite statutory period.” De la Pena v. Jackson Stone Co., 103 Conn. 93, 99, 130 A. 89. The term “compensable injury” in the context of workmen’s compensation assumes the existence of an injury and is concerned only with the question of whether that injury arose out of and in the course of employment. See also Alford v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, 229 So.2d 372, 375 (La.); Seymour v. Journal-Star Printing Co., 174 Neb. 150, 152-53, 116 N.W.2d 297; Haufe v. American Smelting & Refining Co., 163 Neb. 329, 330, 79 N.W.2d 570. By pleading that the alleged injury was not compensable, the defendants specifically limited their contest and defense to that single ground, not contesting the several other allegations contained in the “Form for Notice to Employer in Case of Death” filed by the claimant. The plaintiff’s allegations which thereafter remained uncontested included: (1) the claim that Menzies was an employee of the respondent, (2) the place of employment, (3) the precise injuries he sustained, and (4) the claim that he died as a result of these injuries, that the claimant had been dependent on him for support and that she was the executrix of his estate.
The plaintiff argued that because the Workmen’s Compensation Act should be interpreted liberally in favor of claimants; see, for example, Klapproth *356v. Turner, 156 Conn. 276, 279, 240 A.2d 886; the word “specific” as used in § 31-297 should be strictly construed to mean “precise” or “detailed” rather than construed as “definite, or making definite.” See Webster, New International Dictionary (2d Ed.). Other legal and equitable principles, however, are entitled to at least as much consideration in a proceeding which is to be governed by equitable principles. The opportunity to be heard and to present defenses is an essential element of due process of law; Proctor v. Sachner, 143 Conn. 9, 17, 118 A.2d 621; and equity’s abhorrence of forfeitures and of penalties which are flagrantly oppressive and disproportionate to the delict which has been committed are equally as persuasive as, and not necessarily inconsistent with, the policy favoring employees in workmen’s compensation cases. Due process considerations aside, I would be reluctant to infer an intention on the part of the legislature to condition the right of a defendant to present a valid available defense on a strict construction of the degree of particularity with which one portion of a notice is pleaded in an administrative proceeding in which the legislature has expressly provided that “no formal pleadings shall be required, beyond such informal notices as the commission approves” (General Statutes § 31-298) and the opposing party has not even suggested any claim of surprise or prejudice. It seems to me that to default a defendant on the technical ground that his pleading is not sufficiently specific, in the language of the majority opinion “runs counter to the spirit of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as well as to its literal provision no formal pleadings shall be required.’ General Statutes § 31-298.” That section of the statute not only expressly dispenses with the necessity for strict formal *357pleadings in workmen’s compensation eases but also provides that “the commissioner shall proceed, so far as possible, in accordance with the rules of equity.” The commissioner is directed “to carry out justly the spirit” of the act and “is the adviser of all and the umpire between the disputants.” Delgaizo v. Veeder-Root, Inc., 133 Conn. 664, 668, 54 A.2d 262, quoting Powers v. Hotel Bond Co., 89 Conn. 143, 149, 93 A. 245. To require strict pleading on the part of the defendants is entirely contrary to the informality which prevails in workmen’s compensation cases and “[ejquity abhors, and the law does not favor, a forfeiture.” Pierce v. Staub, 78 Conn. 459, 466, 62 A. 760. In the absence of a clearly expressed statutory provision to the contrary, the sanction of the conclusive presumption that the employer has accepted the compensability of an alleged injury and forfeited the right to contest compensability should apply only where the employer has failed timely to file the notice that he is contesting liability and should not by judicial construction be made applicable in such a case as this where the employer has within the time limited filed the notice of contest and expressly disclaimed liability.
In my opinion the defendants complied with the statutory directive as to the timely filing of their notice contesting liability but even if their stated ground of defense were not sufficiently specific fully to apprise the claimant of their defense I cannot read § 31-297 (b) as precluding them from contesting the plaintiff’s claims and as permitting the plaintiff to prevail as on default and without requiring her to prove that she is in fact entitled to the workmen’s compensation benefits which she has claimed. I would find no error in the conclusions of *358both the commissioner and the trial court that the defendants were not precluded from contesting the plaintiff’s claim.
H
Liability
On the merits of the issue of liability, I would find error in the judgment sustaining the commissioner’s award to the claimant. The basic facts have been recited in the majority opinion with the exception of one not only material but decisive fact which the defendants are entitled to have added to the finding in accordance with their assignment of error. This fact is that when Menzies, on his way home, parked the automobile and left it to go to pick up the mail that had been left in the Von Hennings’ mailbox and while on that errand sustained his fatal injury, he was doing an act as a favor to his neighbors and one which had nothing to do with his employment by the defendant Fisher. The plaintiff herself so testified.1 The defendants are entitled to have the finding corrected to include this fact as one which was not only admitted and undisputed but which was testified to by the plaintiff herself. With the addition of this fact to the finding, it must be concluded that the record does not support the commissioner’s conclusion that the injuries sustained by Menzies were injuries “arising out of and in the course of his employ*359ment”2 within the meaning of § 31-275 of the General Statutes as interpreted by this court. Bather, it must be concluded that Menzies’ stopping and leaving the automobile and going to pick up the Von Hennings’ mail was such a deviation from the duties of his employment as to render his injury noncompensable under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
The plaintiff has argued that because the mailbox was situated directly on the route usually taken by Menzies from work to home and his employer would permit such a personal errand as he was doing for the Von Hennings, there was no such deviation. The weakness in this argument is that a deviation from employment may occur regardless of any geographic change of position. The claimant has the burden of proving a compensable injury. Dombach v. Olkon Corporation, 163 Conn. 216, 221, 302 A.2d 270; Woodley v. Rossi, 152 Conn. 1, 4, 202 A.2d 136. To be compensable, the injury must meet the dual tests of having arisen in the course of the employment and out of the employment. “[A]n injury arises in the course of the employment when it takes place (a) within the period of the employment, (b) at a place where the employee may reasonably be and (c) while he is reasonably fulfilling the duties of the employment or doing something incidental to it. Woodley v. Rossi, . . . [152 Conn. 1, 4, 202 A.2d 136] ; Farn*360ham v. Labutis, 147 Conn. 267, 269, 160 A.2d 120.” Dombach v. Olkon Corporation, supra. The second criterion—that the injury arose out of the employment—may be satisfied by a showing that a causal connection exists between the injury and the employment. Mulligan v. Oakes, 128 Conn. 488, 490-91, 23 A.2d 870; Larke v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 90 Conn. 303, 309, 97 A. 320.
The finding as corrected discloses that in this case the third requirement of the “in the course of his employment” criterion was not met. Menzies was not at the time of his injury performing any duties but had deviated temporarily from the course of his employment. Case law has rather precisely delineated what kinds of interruptions constitute deviations. If a momentary interruption serves the purpose of benefiting the employer, regardless of whom else it might benefit, an injury resulting therefrom may be compensable. Farnham v. Labutis, 147 Conn. 267, 270, 160 A.2d 120; Kuharski v. Bristol Brass Corporation, 132 Conn. 563, 566, 46 A.2d 11; Davis v. Goldie Motors, Inc., 129 Conn. 240, 243, 27 A.2d 164. Similarly, injuries occurring during diversions from the usual course of employment which diversions nevertheless enable the employee more efficiently or more comfortably to continue performing his duties are compensable. Vitas v. Grace Hospital Society, 107 Conn. 512, 516, 141 A. 649; Ryerson v. A. E. Bounty Co., 107 Conn. 370, 375, 140 A. 728; see 1 Larson, Law of Workmen’s Compensation, p. 4-269, § 19.63. Where, however, the interruption and deviation confer no benefit on the employer, either directly, or indirectly by fostering the well-being of the employee, an injury arising therein is not compensable. Farnham v. Labutis, supra; Davis *361v. Goldie Motors, Inc., supra; Vitas v. Grace Hospital Society, supra. It has been suggested that where an injury occurs during an interruption which has been taken solely to benefit a third party, the injury is even more clearly noneompensable. 58 Am. Jur. 740, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 235. Also, the fact that injury results from risks inherent in the interruption rather than in the usual course of employment militates against compensation. Mason v. Alexandre, 96 Conn. 343, 345, 113 A. 925; see Katz v. Katz, 137 Conn. 134, 139, 75 A.2d 57; 1 Larson, op. cit., p. 4-263, § 19.61.
The suggestion that the defendant employer would have acquiesced in the performance of Menzies’ errand is of no help to the plaintiff. The mere fact that an employer has granted a personal privilege, the performance of which is not incidental to the employment, does not have the effect of rendering compensable otherwise noneompensable injuries arising in its performance. Mulligan v. Oakes., supra; see Farnham v. Labutis, supra.
Because Menzies’ injury arose during and out of a deviation from the course of his employment in an undertaking which was not within the scope of his employment, conferred no benefit on his employer and entailed risks different from the usual hazards of his employment in driving to and from work, the court erred in sustaining the conclusion of the commissioner that the injury “arose out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent employer.”
In my opinion there was no error in the court’s decision that the commissioner properly held that the defendants were not precluded from asserting their defense that the injuries sustained by Menzies *362did not arise in the eourse of and out of his employment by the respondent Fisher. On the other hand, I would find error in the decision of the court which sustained the conclusion of the commissioner that the injuries arose out of and in the course of Menzies’ employment by Fisher and were therefore compensable under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
In this opinion MacDonald, J., concurred.

 “Q. This picking up of the mail was being done as a favor for some neighbors? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. This didn’t have anything to do with his employment? A. No sir. I do the same for my other neighbors.
“Q. He indicated to you on the road that day that he was in the act of getting some mail when the accident happened? A. Yes sir.
“Q. This was for the benefit of your neighbors who had asked him to do this? A. Yes.”

 “[General Statutes] See. 31-275. definitions. . . . 'Arising out of and in the eourse of his employment’ means an accidental injury happening to an employee . . . originating while he has been engaged in the line of his duty in the business or affairs of the employer upon the employer’s premises, or while so engaged elsewhere upon the employer’s business or affairs by the direction, express or implied, of the employer. . . .
“A personal injury shall not be deemed to arise out of the employment unless causally traceable to the employment . . . .”