Legal Opinion
McNulty v. City of Stamford
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided May 16, 1995No. 13290PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLavery, J.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the second injury fund is hable to municipalities for payment under the heart and hypertension statute, General Statutes § 7-433c, in the same manner as it is liable for workers’ compensation claims. The compensation review board (board) answered in the affirmative. We disagree.
The pertinent facts are as follows. On June 29,1977, Edward McNulty (decedent), then a member of the *837police department of the city of Stamford, was found to be suffering from heart disease compensable under the provisions of General Statutes § 7-433c. He sustained a 20 percent…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- State v. KishSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Bakelaar v. City of West HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Town of Plainville v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- Howell v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. of VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Civardi v. City of NorwichSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- King v. SultarSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- Bergeson v. City of New LondonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- Salmeri v. Department of Public SafetyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Taravella v. StanleyConnecticut Appellate Court · 1999