From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McGowan v. General Dynamics Corp.

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Apr 4, 1989
210 Conn. 580 (Conn. 1989)

Opinion

(13520) (13519)

Argued March 8, 1989

Decision released April 4, 1989

Appeal in each case from an award of disability benefits to the plaintiff by the workers' compensation commissioner for the second district, brought to the compensation review division, which affirmed the commissioner's decision, and the defendants appealed to the Appellate Court, Dupont, Borden and Foti, Js.; judgment reversing the decision of the compensation review division and setting aside the disability awards, from which the plaintiffs, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Affirmed.

Stephen C. Embry, for the appellant (plaintiff in the first case).

Matthew Shafner, with whom, on the brief, were Carolyn P. Kelly and Mark Oberlatz, for the appellant (plaintiff in the second case).

Lucas D. Strunk, with whom, on the brief, was James L. Pomeranz, for the appellees (defendants in both cases).


These joint appeals involve the relationship of disability benefits under two overlapping statutes, the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) and the Connecticut Workers' Compensation Act. The plaintiffs, Charles McGowan and Sebastian Semataro, were each injured while working for the defendant, General Dynamics Corporation/Electric Boat Division. Each plaintiff collected benefits under LHWCA relating to his injury that exceeded, in their totality, the amount to which each plaintiff was entitled under workers' compensation. Each then claimed an entitlement to recover additional scarring benefits, pursuant to General Statutes 31-308 (d), despite the general rule that payments under one compensation scheme are to be credited against benefits collectible under the other. Because LHWCA's compensation scheme does not include awards for scarring, the workers' compensation commission held additional benefits for this separate category to be separately compensable. The defendants were unsuccessful in their appeal of these scarring awards to the compensation review division.

The defendant's insurer, Aetna Life and Casualty, is a codefendant in each appeal.

On further appeal to the Appellate Court, the defendants prevailed in their contention that the awards for scarring were improper because a category by category credit scheme would result in impermissible double recovery in violation of federal law. McGowan v. General Dynamics Corporation/Electric Boat Division, 15 Conn. App. 615, 618-25, 546 A.2d 893 (1988). We granted certification limited, in each appeal, to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude, in the circumstances of this case, that disability benefits paid under LHWCA should be credited against the plaintiff's Connecticut disability benefits?" McGowan v. General Dynamics Corporation/Electric Boat Division, 209 Conn. 813, 550 A.2d 1083 (1988); Semataro v. General Dynamics Corporation/Electric Boat Division, 209 Conn. 814, 550 A.2d 1083 (1988).

After examining the record on appeal, and after considering the briefs and arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgments of the Appellate Court must be affirmed. The issue on which we granted certification was properly resolved in the thoughtful and comprehensive opinion of the Appellate Court. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion therein contained.


Summaries of

McGowan v. General Dynamics Corp.

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Apr 4, 1989
210 Conn. 580 (Conn. 1989)
Case details for

McGowan v. General Dynamics Corp.

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES McGOWAN v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION/ELECTRIC BOAT DIVISION ET…

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Apr 4, 1989

Citations

210 Conn. 580 (Conn. 1989)
556 A.2d 587

Citing Cases

Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

Under such crediting, "[r]egardless of where an employee first seeks an award of benefits, he or she is…

Pokorny v. Getta's Garage

Under that statute the private insurance carrier paying the hospital expenses has a lien against that…