Supreme Court denies heart benefits for Waterford firefighter
Jun. 27—WATERFORD — The state Supreme Court has ruled against a former Waterford firefighter's compensation claim for heart and hypertension benefits, saying the firefighter's initial part-time work did not qualify him for benefits under state law.
The high court's 5-1 ruling published on June 20 overturns previous decisions by the Compensation Review Board and the state Appellate Court to award longtime Cohanzie Fire Department member Christopher A. Clark his workers compensation claim. The amount of the claim is unknown.
Clark suffered a heart attack in 2017 which resulted in a quadruple bypass surgery. He had filed a compensation claim for benefits that was challenged by the town of Waterford.
Connecticut Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard A. Robinson and Justices Andrew J. McDonald, Gregory T. D'Auria, Raheem L. Mullins, and Joan K. Alexander ruled to reverse the Appellate Court decision.
Justice Steven D. Ecker was the lone dissenting vote and warned of "severe consequences throughout Connecticut for innumerable municipal firefighters, police officers, and their survivors."
Attorney Kyle J. Zrenda, who represented the Town of Waterford, said it is unclear if the ruling will have significant impact statewide but said compensation for heart disease and hypertension has placed a "tremendous financial strain on towns," he said.
In his dissenting opinion, Ecker called the ruling "a novel construction of an important and long-standing statute." Ecker argued that the statutory benefits have existed since the early 1950s and benefits have been awarded to countless firefighters and police officers "without reference to the definition of 'member'" or someone eligible for benefits. The court's decision, he said, means that benefits are only available to firefighters and police officers enrolled in the state's retirement plan.
Clark had applied for benefits from the town of Waterford under the state law that provides disability benefits for police and firefighters "disabled or dead as the result of hypertension or heart disease." An amendment to the law limits the benefits to anyone who started work before July 1, 1996.
The town claimed Clark was not a full-time employee of the fire department prior to 1996 and therefore not eligible for benefits. The state Compensation Review Board and the state Appellate Court disagreed with the town and ruled that Clark had a right to the benefits and determined his date of hire to be May 24, 1992. Records show that's when Clark started part-time work with the Cohanzie Fire Department. Clark was hired as a full-time firefighter in 1997.
During his testimony in previous court proceedings, Clark had testified to working irregular hours prior to being hired full-time but performing duties commensurate with the full-time employees. There was not testimony on the exactly how many hours a week he worked prior to being hired full-time.
Zrenda successfully argued before the state Supreme Court that there is a state statue that defines the term "member," or someone eligible for benefits, as an employee who works at least 20 hours per week.
"Our argument was because (Clark) didn't meet that definition of the term 'member' before July 1, 1996, he wasn't entitled with the benefits," Zrenda said. "This was an argument that hadn't been raised before in this case which is somewhat surprising."
The state Supreme Court, in its decision to reverse the Appellate Court decision, determined "the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that the definition of 'member'" was not a factor in Clark's eligibility for heart and hypertension benefits. The state Supreme Court wrote in its decision that if the legislature had intended to provide benefits for part-time firefighters it would have expressly written it into the statute.
The state Supreme Court remanded the issue of whether Clark had worked more than 20 hours per week while working part-time to the state's Claims Commissioner for further proceeding.
Attorney Eric W. Chester, who represented Clark in the court proceedings, said on Tuesday he was disappointed by the ruling particularly because of the fact Clark had prevailed multiple times prior to the state Supreme Court decision. He said he did not see a path for an appeal.
Clark could not be reached for comment.
Waterford First Selectman Rob Brule released a statement Tuesday saying the town was pleased with the decision.
"The Town persisted, prevailed and we are grateful," Brule said in the statement.
