How were Connecticut workers’ compensation COLAs calculated for injuries before July 1993?

Plain-English summary

In November 1995, Connecticut’s AG answered how the Workers’ Compensation Commission should calculate 1994 and 1995 cost-of-living adjustments for claimants injured before July 1, 1993. A 1993 act changed the maximum compensation formula from one based on 150 percent of average manufacturing production-worker wages to one based on all workers’ wages. The act also preserved the law in force at the injury date for the weekly compensation of people injured before the change.

The AG read “compensation” to include later benefit adjustments. As a result, he said the commission should compare the maximum rates under the older formula and apply the resulting percentage increase to the claimant’s weekly compensation rate, as it had done for 1993. He treated the act’s express injury-date rule as decisive and did not need to decide whether the change was substantive or procedural.

Claimants and benefit administrators at the time

The opinion used the claimant’s injury date to select the maximum-rate formula for these historical COLAs. It did not set a current benefit amount for any individual claim.

Employers and insurers at the time

The AG rejected recalculating pre-change claimants’ 1994 and 1995 adjustments under the newer all-worker wage formula.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the new maximum-rate formula govern a worker injured before July 1993?
A: No. The AG said that worker’s 1994 and 1995 COLAs used the formula in force when the injury occurred.

Q: Did “compensation” include annual cost-of-living increases?
A: Yes. The opinion relied on the statute’s definition including adjustments in benefits or payments.

Q: Did the AG decide whether the 1993 amendment was procedural or substantive?
A: No. He found that question unnecessary because the act expressly preserved the injury-date rule.

Background and statutory framework

The AG read the saving language in §31-309 with the compensation definition in §31-275(4) and the adjustment provision in Section 31-307a. Together, they kept the earlier formula for the described claimants.

Citations and references

Statutes: §31-309; §31-275(4); Section 31-307a.

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1995-formal-opinions/the-honorable-jesse-frankl-workers-compensation-commission-1995032-formal-opinion-attorney-general-o

Original opinion text

The Honorable Jesse Frankl, Workers' Compensation Commission, 1995-032 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

November 2, 1995

The Honorable Jesse Frankl

Chairman

Workers' Compensation Commission

21 Oak Street

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Chairman Frankl:

This is in response to your letter dated October 16, 1995, wherein you requested a legal opinion from this office concerning the computation of cost of living adjustments (COLAs) under the Workers' Compensation Act for the years 1994 and 1995 for persons injured prior to July 1, 1993.

As you mentioned in your request, this office provided an opinion to you, dated September 23, 1993, concerning a similar question. It is our opinion that the reasoning provided in the September 22, 1993 opinion still pertains, and the response is the same. COLAs for 1994 and 1995 should be computed in the same manner that COLAs were computed for 1993, i.e., by comparing the maximum compensation rates under §31-309 using 150% of the average production wage formula (the law in effect for injuries occurring prior to July 1, 1993) and applying whatever percentage increase there is to the claimant's weekly compensation rate.

Section 21 of Public Act 93-228 made several changes to the language of §31-309, which sets the maximum compensation rate. Prior to the effective date of this Act, the maximum compensation rate was "one hundred fifty per cent, raised to the next even dollar, of the average weekly earnings of production and related workers in manufacturing in the state as hereinafter defined...." After the effective date, the maximum compensation rate was "one hundred per cent, raised to the next even dollar, of the average weekly earnings of all workers in the state as hereinafter defined...." However, this same sentence goes on to state: "[E]xcept 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."

"Compensation" is defined in §31-275(4) as "benefits or payments mandated by the provisions of this chapter, including, but not limited to, indemnity, medical and surgical aid or hospital or nursing service...and any type of payment for disability,... or any adjustments in benefits or payments required by this chapter." (emphasis added). According to Section 31-307a, COLAs are defined as, "[t]he weekly compensation rate of each employee entitled to receive compensation under section 31-307 ... adjusted annually as provided in this subsection ..., to provide the injured employee with a cost-of-living adjustment in his weekly compensation rate...." Since COLAs are adjustments in "benefits or payments" they are included within the definition of "compensation" set forth in §§ 31-275(4).

Therefore, §31-309 states that the "compensation" received by someone injured before July 1, 1993 shall be computed in accordance with the law in effect at the date of injury. Section 31-275 states that compensation includes any adjustments required under Chapter 568 and section 31-307 provides for an annual cost-of-living adjustment to the compensation rate for certain employees. Taken together, these sections unequivocally require that the COLAs you are concerned with be computed in accordance with the law in effect at the time of injury, i.e., using the 150% of the average weekly earnings of production and related workers in manufacturing in the state, as defined in subsection (c) of §31-309.

Because the statute is specific in requiring that the compensation rate, and thus the COLA, be computed in accordance with the law in effect at the time of the injury, the issue of whether Public Act 93-228 affected the substance or procedure of the Workers' Compensation law, which you mention in your request, is not relevant to your present question. See Turner v. Turner, 219 Conn. 703, 716 (1991).

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

William J. McCullough

Assistant Attorney General

RB/WJM