Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 31 — LABOR · Chapter 568 — Workers' Compensation Act
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-325 (2026)

Acknowledgment by employees having certain physical conditions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Section 31-325 is repealed, effective June 29, 1995.

(1949 Rev., S. 7465; 1949, S. 3051d; 1958 Rev., S. 31-192; 1961, P.A. 491, S. 51; 1967, P.A. 842, S. 19; 1971, P.A. 336; P.A. 79-376, S. 79; P.A. 91-32, S. 33, 41; P.A. 95-277, S. 18, 19.)

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1970–1999 · leading case: Izzo v. Meriden-Wallingford Hosp., 676 A.2d 857 (Conn. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Izzo v. Meriden-Wallingford Hosp., 676 A.2d 857 (Conn. 1996). · cites it 32× “to 1983) § 31-325, 1 which was not *261 approved by the workers’ compensation commissioner (commissioner) until after the occurrence of the employee’s compensable injury, is effective to transfer liability from the employer to the second injury fund (fund).”
Plesz v. United Tech. Corp., 384 A.2d 363 (Conn. 1978). · cites it 3× “On this appeal the defendants have assigned error in the failure of the trial court to correct the finding and award, in the court’s conclusion that § 31-325 of the General Statutes, pertaining to waivers, did not apply, in the conclusion that a failure to give the ninety days…”
Gagnon v. United Aircraft Corp., 268 A.2d 660 (Conn. 1970). · cites it 5× “The sole issue before this court on appeal is whether a workmen’s compensation commissioner has jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of *303 a waiver executed pursuant to General Statutes § 31-325 1 after it lias been approved by the commissioner and where there is no claim…”
Wright v. United Tech. Corp., 674 A.2d 1387 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 17× “The resolution of this issue turns on the interplay of General Statutes §§ 31-325 1 and 31-349. 2 *233 The board reversed the decision of the workers’ compensation commissioner for the first district (commissioner) who had transferred liability to the fund pursuant solely to §…”
Casey v. Ne. Utils., 731 A.2d 294 (Conn. 1999). · cites it 2× “to 1995) § 31-325. We note for clarity that in 1995, “[cjoncluding that the second injury fund had outlived its usefulness,” the legislature adopted No.”
Jacques v. H. O. Penn Mach. Co., 349 A.2d 847 (Conn. 1974). · cites it 2× “To remedy that situation this state adopted second injury fund legislation in 1945. Public Acts 1945, No.”
Samson v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 284 A.2d 890 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1971). ““The mere fact that a person places certain restrictions on the type of work he is willing to accept does not, in itself, make him unavailable for work within the intent and meaning of § 31-325.” Dubkowski v. Administrator, 150 Conn.”
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.