Legal Opinion
Bergeson v. City of New London
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided June 22, 2004No. SC 17005PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KATZ, J.
This appeal requires us to determine whether, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-306 (a) (2) (A)1 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, the second *766injury fund (fund)2 is required to reimburse a municipal employer for cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) paid in connection with a claim for benefits under the Heart and Hypertension Act, General Statutes § 7-433c.3 The defendants, the city of New London (city) and CIRMA Claims and Risk Control Services (CIRMA),4 *767appeal5 from the decision of the workers’ compensation review board (board) concluding that the fund was not required to…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- General Motors Corp. v. RomeinSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Bakelaar v. City of West HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Ducharme v. City of PutnamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1971
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- State v. SalamonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- O'CONNOR v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- Genesky v. Town of East LymeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- Ciarlelli v. TOWN OF HAMDENSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
- Blakeslee v. PLATT BROS. AND CO.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.