Any condition of impairment of health caused by hypertension or heart disease resulting in total or partial disability or death to a member of the security force or fire department of The University of Connecticut or the aeronautics operations of the Department of Transportation, or to a member of the Office of State Capitol Police or any person appointed under section
29-18 as a special policeman for the State Capitol building and grounds, the Legislative Office Building and parking garage and related structures and facilities, and other areas under the supervision and control of the Joint Committee on Legislative Management, or to state personnel engaged in guard or instructional duties in the Connecticut Correctional Institution, Somers, Connecticut Correctional Institution, Enfield-Medium, the Carl Robinson Correctional Institution, Enfield, John R. Manson Youth Institution, Cheshire, the York Correctional Institution, the Connecticut Correctional Center, Cheshire, or the community correctional centers, or to any employee of the Whiting Forensic Hospital with direct and substantial patient contact, or to any detective, chief inspector or inspector in the Division of Criminal Justice or chief detective, or to any state employee designated as a hazardous duty employee pursuant to an applicable collective bargaining agreement who successfully passed a physical examination on entry into such service, which examination failed to reveal any evidence of such condition, shall be presumed to have been suffered in the performance of his duty and shall be compensable in accordance with the provisions of chapter 568, except that for the first three months of compensability the employee shall continue to receive the full salary which he was receiving at the time of injury in the manner provided by the provisions of section
5-142. Any such employee who began such service prior to June 28, 1985, and was not covered by the provisions of this section prior to said date shall not be required, for purposes of this section, to show proof that he successfully passed a physical examination on entry into such service.
(1963, P.A. 563; February, 1965, P.A. 189, S. 1; 1967, P.A. 803; 1969, P.A. 798; 1972, P.A. 71, S. 6; P.A. 77-614, S. 556, 610; P.A. 80-75, S. 1, 2; P.A. 83-13, S. 6; P.A. 84-48, S. 14, 17; P.A. 85-510, S. 14, 35; P.A. 86-186, S. 2; P.A. 87-282, S. 2; P.A. 89-82, S. 8, 11; P.A. 95-257, S. 20, 58; P.A. 96-219, S. 7; P.A. 15-14, S. 21; P.A. 18-86, S. 8.)
History: 1965 act added State Prison guards; 1967 act included Connecticut Reformatory guards; 1969 act included members of the aeronautics department and replaced “State Prison and Connecticut Reformatory” with references to Connecticut Correctional Institutions at Osborn and Cheshire and community correctional centers; 1972 act deleted reference to correctional institution at Osborn and included correctional institutions at Somers and Enfield; P.A. 77-614 deleted reference to separate aeronautics department, replacing it with reference to aeronautics operations of transportation department, effective January 1, 1979; P.A. 80-75 included members of office of capitol security and special policemen for capitol building and grounds; P.A. 83-13 changed reference to “capitol security” to “state capitol security”; P.A. 84-48 included reference to special policemen for other areas under the supervision and control of the joint committee on legislative management; P.A. 85-510 added personnel engaged in “instructional” duties in correctional facilities; added the Connecticut Correctional Institution, Niantic to such facilities; added employees of the Whiting Forensic Institute with direct and substantial patient contact, or any detective, chief inspector or inspector in the division of criminal justice or chief detective, or any state employee designated as a hazardous duty employee pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement; deleted provision that nothing herein shall be construed to affect the application of chapter 568 and substituted provision that disability or death shall be compensable in accordance with chapter 568, except that for the first three months of compensability the employee shall continue to receive the full salary he was receiving at the time of injury in the manner provided by Sec. 5-142 and added provision that any employee who began such service prior to June 28, 1985, and was not covered by this section prior to such date shall not be required to show proof that he passed a physical examination on entry into such service; P.A. 86-186 changed the name of the Connecticut Correctional Institution, Enfield to the Connecticut Correctional Institution, Enfield-Medium, added the Connecticut Correctional Institution, Enfield-Minimum and the Connecticut Correctional Center, Cheshire and changed the name of the Connecticut Correctional Institution, Cheshire to the John R. Manson Youth Institution, Cheshire; P.A. 87-282 changed the name of the Connecticut Correctional Institution, Enfield-Minimum to the Carl Robinson Correctional Institution, Enfield; P.A. 89-82 expanded reference to state capitol building and grounds to include legislative office building and parking garage and related structures and facilities; P.A. 95-257 replaced “Whiting Forensic Institute” with “Whiting Forensic Division”, effective July 1, 1995; P.A. 96-219 changed the name of the “Office of State Capitol Security” to the “Office of State Capitol Police”; P.A. 15-14 made a technical change; P.A. 18-86 replaced “Whiting Forensic Division” with “Whiting Forensic Hospital”, effective June 4, 2018.
See Sec. 29-4a re death or disability of member of Division of State Police resulting from heart disease or hypertension.
Cited. 170 C. 410; 175 C. 424. Section provides rebuttable presumption of compensability, but does not, without further evidence, include heart disease or hypertension as an occupational disease pursuant to workers compensation law. 266 C. 728.
Cited. 37 CA 835. State police trooper employed by Department of Public Safety does not have an election of remedies as between this section and Sec. 29-4a; rather, trooper must proceed under Sec. 29-4a. 70 CA 321. Burden is on employer to demonstrate that plaintiff's condition or disease was caused by factors outside plaintiff's employment. Id.
Presumption of hypertension lies only where preemployment, physical examination fails to reveal any evidence of hypertension or heart disease. 31 CS 75.
Notes of Decisions
Ciarlelli v. TOWN OF HAMDEN, 8 A.3d 1093 (Conn. 2010).
· cites it 12× “Malchik, a former inspector with the state division of criminal justice, retired from state service on September 30, 1998, and, approximately thirteen months later, filed a claim for benefits under General Statutes §§ 5-145a and 5-145c. See id.”
Malchik v. Div. of Crim. Just., 835 A.2d 940 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 11× “The plaintiff, however, cites to General Statutes §§ 5-145a 9 and 5-145c 10 as evidence that his coronary artery disease is an occupational disease of investigators.”
Salmeri v. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 798 A.2d 481 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002).
· cites it 64× “Is General Statutes § 29-4a the sole vehicle of relief for a state police officer within the department of public safety who claims compensation for hypertension or heart disease or may that officer elect to be covered under either General Statutes § 5-145a or General Statutes §…”
Gartrell v. Dep't of Corr., 787 A.2d 541 (Conn. 2002).
· cites it 5× “hearing on the compensability of the plaintiffs claim and, on the basis of the evidence presented, concluded, inter alia, that: (1) the plaintiff had sustained a compensable injury, namely, vasospastic angina, on October 3, 1996, that arose out of and in the course of his…”
Phipps v. Niejadlik, 399 A.2d 1256 (Conn. 1978).
· cites it 10× “The reach of § 5-145a and its attendant presumptive structure all depend upon the assumption that a heart attack is not automatically disqualified *428 from the category of "injury.”
Stone v. East Coast Swappers, LLC, 337 Conn. 589 (Conn. 2020).
· cites it 2× “, General Statutes § 5-145a (hypertension and heart dis- ease presumed to have been suffered in performance of certain personnel’s duty); General Statutes § 46b-56b (presumption that it is in best interest of child to be in custody of parent); General Statutes § 52-183 (presump-…”
Bergeson v. City of New London, 850 A.2d 184 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 2× “) Also, General Statutes § 5-145a, which provides similar benefits for certain state employees, provides in relevant part: “Any condition of impairment of health by hypertension or heart disease .”
Gartrell v. Dep't of Corr., 779 A.2d 124 (Conn. 2001).
· cites it 5× “hearing on the compensability of the plaintiffs claim and, on the basis of the evidence presented, concluded, inter alia, that: (1) the plaintiff had sustained a compensable injury, namely, vasospastic angina, on October 3, 1996, that arose out of and in the course of his…”
Jones v. Town of Redding, 995 A.2d 51 (Conn. 2010).
“commissioner and the board all have assumed that the appropriate statute was [General Statutes] § 5-145a. The plaintiff in this case advised the defendant that his claim was for compensation for an impairment of health caused by hypertension or heart disease.”
Tremblay v. Connecticut State Employees' Ret. Comm'n, 365 A.2d 1125 (Conn. 1976).
· cites it 3× “” The second statute, § 5-145a, extends to certain employees the benefit of a presumption: “Any condition of impairment of health caused by hypertension or heart disease resulting in total or partial disability or death to a member of the security force .”
Gary v. State, 792 A.2d 874 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002).
· cites it 5× “The commissioner also found that because of the treatment for hypertension in 1989, the plaintiff “had one year from May 1, 1989, within which to file a [hypertension] claim pursuant to [General Statutes § 5-145a].” Notwithstanding those findings, the commissioner further found…”
Bergin v. Dep't of Corr., 817 A.2d 136 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 6× “The plaintiff sought benefits pursuant to General Statutes §§ 5-145a 1 *593 31-306 2 and 31-284.”
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.