Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 31 — LABOR · Chapter 557 — Employment Regulation
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51h (2025)

Employer not to cancel insurance coverage or cease making contributions to welfare fund of employee eligible to receive or receiving workers' compensation or sick leave payments. Employer accident report. Complaint. Hearing. Appeal

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Section 31-51h is repealed.

(1967, P.A. 782; P.A. 76-420, S. 1, 2; P.A. 77-116; P.A. 79-376, S. 29; P.A. 81-464, S. 1; P.A. 82-398, S. 7.)

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1981–1999 · leading case: Civardi v. City of Norwich, 649 A.2d 523 (Conn. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Civardi v. City of Norwich, 649 A.2d 523 (Conn. 1994). · cites it 13× “to 1981) § 31-51h 10 was unconstitutional.* 11 In Ilsley, the United Stated District Court ruled that by impermissibly regulating the duration of payments made by an employer to a jointly administered employee union welfare fund and altering an employer’s obligations pursuant to…”
Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp. v. Ilsley, 518 F. Supp. 1297 (D. Conn. 1981). · cites it 22× “” Conn.Gen. Stat. § 31-51h. The plaintiff replies that the welfare fund is an “employee benefit plan,” as defined by ERISA, 1 and so is shielded from state regulation by the preemption provision of ERISA.”
R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Prevost, 915 F.2d 787 (2d Cir. 1990). “On the latter point, we concluded that the “broadly designed” employer plans at issue were not “maintained solely” to comply with applicable workmen’s compensation laws within the meaning of section 1003(b)(3).”
Liano v. City of Bridgeport, 737 A.2d 983 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999). “to 1979) § 31-51h. Neither party appealed from any of those decisions.”
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.