Innocent v. St. Joseph's Medical Center

In Innocent v. St. Joseph's Medical Center, 243 Conn. 513, 705 A.2d 200 (1998), the fund appealed from the board's decision that affirmed the transfer of liability to the fund, claiming that under 31-349 (a) the employer's notice was untimely. Id., 517. The employer argued that the 104 week period required in 31-349 (a) did not include a time period during which the claimant had returned to light duty work. Id. The fund contended that all medically documented periods of disability count toward the calculation of timely notice under 31-349 (a). Id. Thus, the fund argued that the notice was untimely because the claimant's period of light duty employment should be counted in determining the 104 week period under 31-349. Id. The Court agreed with the fund and held that: "Under the recent decisions in Vaillancourt v. New Britain Machine/Litton, supra, 224 Conn. 382, Six v. Thomas O'Connor & Co., supra, 235 Conn. 790, 669 A.2d 1214, and Williams v. Best Cleaners, Inc., supra, 237 Conn. 490, the rate of pay received by the claimant and the number of hours worked upon her return to work are not determinative of the time period of her disability under 31-349 (a). Rather, the determinative factor as to whether the time period is to be included in calculating the 104 week period of disability that triggers the date by which the employer must furnish notice to the fund, is whether the claimant is medically impaired as a result of his or her work-related injury." Innocent, 243 Conn. at 518.