Driscoll v. General Nutrition Corp.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PETERS, J.
The sole issue in this appeal, on certification from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199a,1 is whether the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act bars an employee from pursuing a tort claim for damages for emotional distress resulting from a physical and sexual assault that occurred during and in the course of her employment. We conclude that General Statutes § 31-275 (16) (B) (ii),2 when read in light of the facts and circumstances of this case, the policy of exclusivity set forth in General…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Mingachos v. CBS, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Frillici v. Town of WestportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- United Illuminating Co. v. GroppoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Cotto v. United Technologies Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Perodeau v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- Gartrell v. Department of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- State v. Rodriguez-RomanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
- Melanson v. Town of West HartfordConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Matey v. Estate of DemberSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.