ARTHUR H. HEALEY, J.

The issue on this appeal is whether an award made pursuant to General Statutes 7-433c for a permanent partial disability is an asset of a deceased recipient's estate. The plaintiffs, administrators of the recipients' estates, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, Fracasse, J., denying a motion for execution on an award issued to William T. Morgan by compensation commissioner Darius Spain (commissioner). We find no error.

The basic facts are not disputed. On or about April 15, 1955, Morgan became a uniformed employee of the East Haven fire department. Prior to his employment, Morgan underwent a physical examination that did not reveal any evidence of hypertension or heart disease. By the time of his retirement from the fire department, Morgan had attained the rank of chief.

On December 31, 1981, while in the employ of the East Haven fire department, Morgan suffered "congestive heart failure with underlying cardiomyopathy." Morgan retired from the fire department on January 15, 1982, at a salary of $21,700 per year. His pension benefits from the town were $931.40 per month.

Subsequent to his heart failure, Morgan applied to the town of East Haven for benefits pursuant to General Statutes 7-433c. After a hearing, the commissioner issued a finding and award on January 26, 1983. On March 7 and 16, 1983, the commissioner issued supplemental findings and awards. On May 25, 1983, the commissioner issued a final amended finding and award. The May 25 finding stated that, as a result of his heart disease, Morgan was entitled to benefits pursuant to 7-433c, that he had a 75 percent permanent partial impairment of his cardiovascular system and that maximum medical improvement had been attained on January 22, 1982. The commissioner ruled that Morgan was entitled to 585 weeks of benefits and that his compensation rate according to General Statutes 31-308 was $278.33.

Morgan died on January 12, 1985, survived by his wife of forty-two years, Doris K. Morgan. Morgan had no minor children at the time of his death. After his death, the town of East Haven continued payments under the award to Doris K. Morgan until her death on March 2, 1986. No payments were made after that date. The parties stipulated that upon Doris Morgan's death there were no surviving dependents, but there were two surviving adult children. The defendant, the town of East Haven, had made a total payment of 233 weeks of benefits: twenty-three weeks at $203.37 per week; fifty-two weeks at $235.78 per week; 135 weeks at $278.33 per week; and forty-six weeks at $154.05 per week commuted to a lump sum of $7086.30.

Following the defendant's cessation of payments, the fiduciaries of the estates of William and Doris Morgan applied for an execution, pursuant to General Statutes 31-300. The trial court denied the motion for an execution and the plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court, whereupon, we transferred the case to this court pursuant to Practice Book 4023.

The history of Connecticut's statute providing benefits for police and fire personnel who suffer from hypertension or heart disease has been "rather tumultuous." Plainville v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 178 Conn. 664, 667, 425 A.2d 131 (1979). The statute in its original form in 1951 established a rebuttable presumption that a uniformed firefighter of a paid municipal fire department who, prior to employment, passed a physical examination without evidence of hypertension or heart disease, and who later suffered from such disease, was presumed to have been injured in the line of duty for purposes of retirement benefits. General Statutes (Sup. 1951) 175b. The statute was amended a number of times during the 1950s, including an amendment that made it applicable to paid police personnel as well as fire personnel. General Statutes (Sup. 1953) 308c. In 1961, the legislature amended the provision to make express reference to chapter 568 dealing with workers' compensation. The new hypertension and heart disease provision, General Statutes 7-433b, provided a rebuttable presumption of injury in the line of duty for purposes of calculating benefits under chapter 568 for police and fire personnel. General Statutes (Sup. 1961) 433b.

The real turmoil regarding the statute began in 1969, when the legislature amended the provision to include a conclusive presumption of injury in the line of duty for those police or fire personnel who suffered from hypertension or heart disease. General Statutes (Sup. 1969) 7-433a. This court struck down the conclusive presumption as violative of due process under both the Connecticut and United States constitutions. Ducharme v. Putnam, 161 Conn. 135, 143, 285 A.2d 318 (1971).

Following the Ducharme decision, the legislature passed the current hypertension and heart disease provision which has been amended only once. To avoid the prior constitutional difficulties of the statute, the legislature did not include the benefits available under 7-433c as compensation under the workers' compensation scheme, chapter 568. Rather, the current provision is "separate and distinct legislation" from chapter 568. Bakelaar v. West Haven, 193 Conn. 59, 67, 475 A.2d 283 (1984). It provides "an outright bonus" to those police and fire personnel who qualify and thus is not a taking of property without due process of law. Grover v. Manchester, 168 Conn. 84, 88, 357 A.2d 922, appeal dismissed, 423 U.S. 805, 96 S.Ct. 14, 46 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975). Chapter 568 is used only as a "procedural avenue" for administration of the benefits under 7-433c so that a duplicate procedure would not have to be created solely for 7-433c. Bakelaar v. West Haven, supra, 68, citing Plainville v. Travelers Indemnity Co., supra, 671-72.

General Statutes 7-433c states that if a uniformed member of a paid municipal police or fire department, who successfully completed a physical examination prior to employment, suffers from hypertension or heart disease, on or off duty, and as a result dies or is disabled permanently or temporarily, partially or totally, "he or his dependents, as the case may be," shall receive compensation from the municipal employer in accordance with the procedures of chapter 568 as if the employee were injured in the course of employment. Despite this language, the plaintiffs suggest that this case should not be controlled by statutory interpretation, and that benefits under 7-433c should not be limited to the employee and that person's dependents. They contend that once an award is made pursuant to 7-433c, the rights of the parties should be controlled by an analysis of the award under principles of workers' compensation law. We are not persuaded by this argument.

"We have consistently held that if a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for construction." Murray v. Lopes, 205 Conn. 27, 33, 529 A.2d 1302 (1987), citing State v. James, 197 Conn. 358, 363, 497 A.2d 402 (1985); State v. Smith, 194 Conn. 213, 222, 479 A.2d 814 (1984); Moscone v. Manson, 185 Conn. 124, 128, 440 A.2d 848 (1981); Zimmer v. Essex, 38 Conn. Sup. 419, 421, 449 A.2d 1053 (1982) ("[w]hen applying this provision [ 7-433c], we are bound to effectuate the intent of the legislature as expressed by the words contained within it; where the terms of the statute are, as here, unambiguous, we cannot speculate as to any unexpressed legislative intent"); see 2A J. Sutherland, Statutory Construction (4th Ed. Sands 1984) 46.04. The language of 7-433c is clear and unambiguous. The statute has mandatory language requiring that the municipal employer compensate the afflicted police or fire department employee and that person's dependents. The clarity of this requirement is illustrated by the fact that the legislature referred to the employee or that person's dependents three times in the compensation requirements of 7-433c. The repetitive use of the term "dependents" indicates that the term was not used inadvertently but rather was used to delineate the class of the ultimate beneficiaries under 7-433c. We cannot construe "dependents," as used in this statute, to include the estates of the recipients. See J. Asselin, Connecticut Workers' Compensation Practice Manual (1985) p. 26 (definition of dependents under workers' compensation law [General Statutes 31-306]). Thus, the clear and unambiguous language of the statute requires a municipal employer to provide compensation only to police and fire personnel who suffer from hypertension and heart disease and their dependents, not to the estates of the deceased recipients.

Even if we were persuaded that this issue could not be resolved solely by statutory interpretation, the alternative analysis proffered by the plaintiffs would not alter our result. The plaintiffs suggest that once the compensation is awarded under 7-433c, there are vested property rights in that award that enable the deceased recipient's estate to receive the benefits upon the recipient's death. According to the plaintiffs, the award in this case vested in the recipients because it was a "specific" award, as opposed to a "special" award.

Specific benefits are benefits for the loss or loss of the use of specific body parts. See Everett v. Ingraham, 150 Conn. 153, 155, 186 A.2d 798 (1962). "These [specific] benefits . . . are not paid as compensation for loss of earning power but to compensate the injured employee for the incapacity through life because of the loss or loss of use of the body member in question." J. Asselin, supra, p. 151. Under the workers' compensation statute, compensation for injuries scheduled in General Statutes 31-308 often is considered specific compensation. See id., p. 153; see also LaProvidenza v. State Employees' Retirement Commission, 178 Conn. 23, 29 n. 2, 420 A.2d 905 (1979). The plaintiffs suggest that specific damages in this context are analogous to a tort judgment and, therefore, are liquidated. Thus, they contend that a recipient has a vested right in the award and the right to compensation passes as a liquidated sum to the estate.

On the other hand, a special award is one that is not compensation for the loss or loss of use of a body part, but is compensation for the inability to work as a result of the disability. See Bassett v. Stratford Lumber Co., 105 Conn. 297, 307, 135 A. 574 (1926) (Haines, J., concurring); J. Asselin, supra, p. 119 (the author refers to these benefits as "continuing wage benefits"). The plaintiffs, following the reasoning of Justice Haines in his concurring opinion in Bassett, suggest that special awards do not survive to the recipients' estates. See Burns's Case, 218 Mass. 8, 13, 105 N.E. 601 (1914).

The benefits provided under 7-433c are more similar to special benefits than to specific benefits under the workers' compensation statute. The preamble in 7-433c provides that the section was designed to protect against "economic loss resulting from disability." (Emphasis added.) Because the term "loss" is restricted to economic loss, it is fair to interpret this statute as limiting benefits calculated under chapter 568 as compensation for the loss of the ability to work. Again, resorting to accepted principles of statutory construction, we conclude that the failure to restrict the meaning of loss in such a way would create surplus language, something that we consistently have held must not be done. See Harris Data Communications, Inc. v. Heffernan, 183 Conn. 194, 197, 438 A.2d 1178 (1981); Winchester v. Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations, 175 Conn. 349, 355-56, 402 A.2d 332 (1978); State v. Briggs, 161 Conn. 283, 287, 287 A.2d 369 (1971).

The restriction of compensation obtained under 7-433c to compensation for economic loss, such as loss of earning capacity, has been expressly noted by the Connecticut Appellate Court. The Appellate Court stated: "The purpose of General Statutes 7-433c is to protect against a wage loss . . . ." Middletown v. Local 1073, 1 Conn. App. 58, 63, 467 A.2d 1258 (1983), cert. dismissed, 192 Conn. 803, 471 A.2d 244 (1984); see Revoir v. New Britain, 2 Conn. App. 255, 260-61, 477 A.2d 161 (1984) ("The purpose of 7-433c is to protect firemen and policemen from economic loss. The measure of economic loss must be determined by the extent to which the claimant is precluded from rejoining the work force in his former capacity or any other reasonable occupation due to his disability."). We previously have noted the sound reasoning of the Appellate Court in Middletown v. Local 1073, supra, on other issues relating to 7-433c; see Maciejewski v. West Hartford, 194 Conn. 139, 151, 480 A.2d 519 (1984) (hypertension and heart disease benefits can be deducted as workers' compensation benefits for purposes of establishing municipal pension benefits); and today we approve their stance on the issue of "economic loss." To conclude, as the plaintiff's contend, that the estate of a deceased recipient, who leaves no dependents under 7-433c, is entitled to the sum of unmatured weekly payments, carries the concept of "economic loss" under 7-433c beyond the legislative purpose in enacting that statute. Therefore, benefits rendered pursuant to 7-433c resemble special benefits under the workers' compensation statute, and as such, do not pass to the estate of the recipient.

Even if we assume, arguendo, that the benefits in this case could be considered specific benefits, the estate of the recipient still is not entitled to the award in accordance with this court's holding in Bassett v. Stratford Lumber Co., supra. Under this court's reasoning in Forkas v. International Silver Co., 100 Conn. 417, 420, 423, 123 A. 831 (1924), a workers' compensation award at a particular rate for a particular number of weeks was an unconditional promise to pay a particular amount that succeeded to the administratrix of the deceased recipient. This rationale, however, was overruled partially in Bassett, in which case we specifically held that any unmatured part of a weekly compensation scheme does not succeed to the estate of the employee. Bassett v. Stratford Lumber Co., supra, 305; see also Klapproth v. Turner, 156 Conn. 276, 279, 240 A.2d 886 (1968); Finkelstone v. Bridgeport Brass Co., 144 Conn. 470, 472, 134 A.2d 74 (1957).

In the instant case, the compensation commissioner awarded Morgan 585 weeks of benefits at the rate of $278.33 per week. Forty-six weeks of benefits at $154.05 per week were commuted at and paid in a lump sum of $7086.30. Had the commuted payment been outstanding at the time of Doris Morgan's death, there is little dispute that the outstanding balance of the commuted amount would be due and payable to the estate. At the time of commutation, that portion of the compensation that was commuted became mature and, thus, immediately due and owing. See General Statutes 31-302. The remainder of the award, however, still was payable weekly and remained unmatured. Therefore, the holding in Bassett controls, and the weekly compensation that remains unpaid does not have to be paid to the estate of the deceased recipient.

The plaintiffs also challenged the authority of the trial judge to deny their application for execution under General Statutes 31-300. The plaintiffs cited Taneszio v. Palmieri, 3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 237, 238, 211 A.2d 840 (1965), for the proposition that issuance of an execution usually is ministerial and a duty of the court. This proposition is correct, but the trial court is not without power to review the application for an execution. The Circuit Court stated that "issuance of an execution is ordinarily a ministerial act . . . ." (Emphasis added.) Id. This must not be construed to mean that it is always a ministerial process. In fact, Connecticut's trial courts have used their prerogative to intervene in the execution process. See, e.g., Goodlatte v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 27 Conn. Sup. 382, 239 A.2d 546 (1967). We are persuaded, therefore, that the trial judge had the authority to deny the plaintiffs' application for an execution.

Finally, on appeal, the plaintiffs raise equal protection and due process challenges, based on the federal and state constitutions, to the trial judge's interpretation of 7-433c and chapter 568. The claims were not raised at trial. We do not entertain questions of law that were not raised at trial unless there is a demonstration of exceptional circumstances. Practice Book 4185; Hartford National Bank Trust Co. v. Tucker, 195 Conn. 218, 219-20 n. 1, 487 A.2d 528, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 845, 106 S.Ct. 135, 88 L.Ed.2d 111 (1985); Rokus v. Bridgeport, 191 Conn. 62, 67, 463 A.2d 252 (1983); Burton v. Burton, 189 Conn. 129, 133 n. 3, 454 A.2d 1282 (1983). There being no evidence of exceptional circumstances in this case, we refuse to consider the plaintiffs' constitutional claims.

In summary, the trial court properly denied the application for an execution in this case. General Statutes 7-433c does not require the payment of benefits to the estate of a deceased recipient; compensation is restricted to the employee and that person's dependents.