(a) Except as provided in section
31-307, the weekly compensation received by an injured employee under the provisions of this chapter shall in no case be more than one hundred per cent, raised to the next even dollar, of the average weekly earnings of all workers in the state as hereinafter defined for the year in which the injury occurred except that the weekly compensation received by an injured employee whose injury occurred before July 1, 1993, shall be computed according to the provisions of law in effect at the time of his injury. In the case of an occupational disease, the time of injury shall be the date of total or partial incapacity to work as a result of such disease.
(b) (1) The average weekly earnings of all workers in the state shall be determined by the Labor Commissioner on or before the fifteenth day of August of each year, to be effective the following October first, and shall be the average of all workers' weekly earnings for the year ending the previous June thirtieth and shall be so determined in accordance with the standards for the determination of average weekly earnings of all workers established by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
(2) Prior to July 1, 1993, the Labor Commissioner shall determine the average weekly earnings of all workers in the state to be effective during the period July 1, 1993, to October 1, 1993.
(c) The average weekly earnings of production and related workers in manufacturing in the state shall be determined by the Labor Commissioner on or before the fifteenth day of August of each year, to be effective the following October first, and shall be the average of the manufacturing production and related workers' weekly earnings for the year ending the previous June thirtieth and shall be so determined in accordance with the standards for the determination of average weekly earnings of production and related workers in manufacturing established by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
(1959, P.A. 580, S. 19; 1961, P.A. 491, S. 32; 1967, P.A. 842, S. 16; 1969, P.A. 696, S. 10; 1971, P.A. 371; P.A. 78-354, S. 1, 8; 78-360, S. 2; P.A. 79-483, S. 12; P.A. 80-124, S. 4; P.A. 87-547; P.A. 88-2, S. 1, 2; P.A. 91-339, S. 29; P.A. 93-228, S. 21, 35.)
History: 1961 act entirely replaced previous provisions; 1967 act set maximum at 60% rather than 55% of average production wage in state for year in which injury occurred; 1969 act substituted “weekly earnings of production and related workers” for “production wage”; 1971 act raised percentage maximum to 66.66%; P.A. 78-354 raised percentage to 85% and added exception re employees injured before January 1, 1979; P.A. 78-360 added exception re Sec. 31-307; P.A. 79-483 raised percentage maximum to 100% except for those injured October 1, 1979; P.A. 80-124 specified that in cases of occupational disease, time of injury is date of total or partial inability to work as a result of disease; P.A. 87-547 increased maximum percentages to 150%; P.A. 88-2 replaced “1979” with “1987,” in provision re applicable injury date; P.A. 91-339 divided existing section into Subsecs. (a) and (b) and changed applicable date from October 1, 1987, to October 1, 1991; P.A. 93-228 amended Subsec. (a) to decrease maximum for persons injured on or after July 1, 1993, from 150% to 100% of state average weekly wage for all workers, inserted new Subsec. (b) to require labor commissioner to annually calculate average weekly earnings of all state workers as well as production and related workers, and redesignated existing Subsec. (b) as Subsec. (c), effective July 1, 1993, except that Subdiv. (2) of Subsec. (b) effective June 30, 1993.
Rate applicable to volunteer firemen under Sec. 7-314a. 159 C. 53. Cited. 187 C. 363; 217 C. 42; 220 C. 739; 239 C. 676.
Cited. 38 CA 754; 40 CA 409.
Cited. 39 CS 449.
Subsec. (a):
Claimant's weekly compensation limit under Subsec. does not encompass lump-sum payment made pursuant to commutation award. 208 CA 615.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
65
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case:
Gil v. Courthouse One, 687 A.2d 146 (Conn. 1997).
Gil v. Courthouse One, 687 A.2d 146 (Conn. 1997).
· cites it 17× “93-228), which amended General Statutes § 31-309 (a), is relevant to our interpretation of P.”
Vincent v. City of New Haven, 941 A.2d 932 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 8× “"(2) To those wholly dependent upon the deceased employee at the time of his injury, a weekly compensation equal to sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of the average weekly earnings of the deceased at the time of injury but in no case more than the maximum weekly benefit rate set…”
Marandino v. Prometheus Pharmacy, 986 A.2d 1023 (Conn. 2010).
· cites it 6× “310, after such earnings have been reduced by any deduction for federal or state taxes, or both, and for the federal Insurance Contributions Act made from such employee's total wages received during the period of calculation of the employee's average weekly wage pursuant to…”
Lafayette v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 770 A.2d 1 (Conn. 2001).
· cites it 5× “ch earnings have been reduced by any deduction for federal or state taxes, or both, and for the federal Insurance Contributions Act made from such employee’s total wages received during the period of calculation of the employee’s average weekly wage pursuant to said section…”
Gurliacci v. Mayer, 590 A.2d 914 (Conn. 1991).
· cites it 2× “In either of the above cases, such compensation shall in no case be more than the maximum weekly benefit rate set forth in section 31-309 and shall continue during the period of partial incapacity but no longer than seven hundred and eighty weeks.”
Birnie v. Elec. Boat Corp., 953 A.2d 28 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 4× “ch earnings have been reduced by any deduction for federal or state taxes, or both, and for the federal Insurance Contributions Act made from such employee’s total wages received during the period of calculation of the employee’s average weekly wage pursuant to said section…”
Duni v. United Tech. Corp., 682 A.2d 99 (Conn. 1996).
· cites it 4× “nings have been reduced by any deduction for federal taxes or state taxes, or both, and for the federal Insurance Contributions Act made from such employee’s total wages received during the period of calculation of the employee’s average weekly wage pursuant to said section…”
Cappellino v. Town of Cheshire, 628 A.2d 595 (Conn. 1993).
· cites it 5× “-308 provided in relevant part: “With respect to the following-described injuries the compensation, in addition to the usual compensation for total incapacity but in lieu of all other payments for compensation, shall be sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of the average weekly…”
Rayhall v. Akim Co., 819 A.2d 803 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Compensation paid under this subsection shall not be more than one hundred per cent, raised to the next even dollar, of the average weekly earnings of production and related workers in manufacturing in the state, as determined in accordance with the provisions of section 31-309,…”
Hasselt v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 815 A.2d 94 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 3× “ch totally incapacitates the employee permanently, shall be adjusted as provided in this subsection as of October 1, 1997, or the October first following the injury date, whichever is later, and annually on each subsequent October first, to provide the injured employee with a…”
Paternostro v. Edward Coon Co., 583 A.2d 1293 (Conn. 1991).
· cites it 5× “” In their brief, the defendants argued in the alternative that even if simultaneous payment of benefits under General Statutes §§ 31-307 and 31-308 (b) is generally permissible, in the instant case it is prohibited because it would result in payment of benefits in violation of…”
Diaz v. Bridgeport, 266 A.3d 909 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021).
· cites it 17× “Because the plaintiff’s weekly compensation rate does not, in and of itself, exceed the maximum weekly compensa- tion under General Statutes § 31-309 (a), inherent in the defendant’s argument is the notion that a lump-sum payment pursuant to a commutation order should be…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.