Could Connecticut withhold workers’ compensation payments for child support?

Plain-English summary

In May 1997, Connecticut’s AG advised the Workers’ Compensation Commission that child support withholding applied to ordinary workers’ compensation benefits, but not to subsistence allowances paid by its rehabilitation unit. An earlier AG opinion had already treated those ad hoc rehabilitation allowances as outside the wage withholding statute’s definition of “earnings.” The AG reaffirmed that narrow conclusion.

The broader workers’ compensation benefits presented a different question. The statute generally protected compensation from attachment by creditors. The AG relied on case law distinguishing support for dependents from an ordinary creditor claim. He also read the support withholding law’s definition of earnings to include benefits replacing wages lost because of a work injury. A provision requiring notice when an obligor claimed workers’ compensation reinforced that reading. The opinion thus allowed support withholding from compensation benefits while keeping the rehabilitation subsistence allowance outside that category.

Commission and support enforcement staff at the time

The AG separated rehabilitation unit subsistence payments from benefits awarded under the workers’ compensation chapter when assessing a support withholding order.

Workers and dependents at the time

The opinion said the general creditor exemption did not bar child support withholding from wage-replacement compensation. It did not characterize subsistence allowances as compensation benefits.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. 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: Could a child support order reach a rehabilitation unit’s subsistence allowance?
A: No. The AG said that payment was neither statutory workers’ compensation nor earnings under the support withholding rule.

Q: Were ordinary workers’ compensation benefits protected from every child support order?
A: No. The AG said they replaced wages and could be subject to support withholding, despite the general creditor exemption.

Q: Why did the opinion treat support differently from an ordinary debt?
A: It relied on a court decision that viewed support for dependents as different from a creditor’s claim under the compensation exemption.

Background and statutory framework

The commission asked whether child support orders reached two kinds of payments. The AG read the withholding statute together with the compensation exemption and a prior opinion about rehabilitation allowances.

Citations and references

Statutes: Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-362; Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-320; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-283a.

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1997-formal-opinions/jesse-m-frankl-workers-compensation-commission-1997012-formal-opinion-attorney-general-of-connecticu

Original opinion text

Jesse M. Frankl, Workers' Compensation Commission, 1997-012 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

May 13, 1997

Jesse M. Frankl

Chairman

Workers' Compensation Commission

21 Oak St., 4th Floor

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Chairman Frankl:

This is in response to your letter dated January 27, 1997, in which you asked our opinion with respect to the following two questions concerning an application of Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-362 to certain portions of the Workers' Compensation Act.1 Specifically, you asked whether subsistence payments provided by the Workers' Compensation Commission Workers' Rehabilitation Unit are subject to orders for wage withholding obtained by the Support Enforcement Division from family court judges for the support of dependent children, and whether the Workers' Compensation Commission in general is subject to such orders with respect to all workers' compensation benefits. According to your letter, the Support Enforcement Division uses §52-362 as its authority to obtain wage withholding orders for the support of dependent children. For the reasons set forth below, it is our opinion that §52-362 does not apply to subsistence payments allotted by the Workers' Rehabilitation unit but does apply to other benefits pursuant to hapter 568.

The question posed with regard to subsistence allowances has already been the subject of an Attorney General's Opinion, Child Support Garnishment Workers' Compensation, 89 Conn. Op. Atty. Gen. 150 (1989), in which the Attorney General unequivocally concluded that subsistence allowances paid under this program to individuals participating in rehabilitation programs are not subject to wage withholding orders because they do not constitute "earnings" as defined in §52-362. A copy of the Opinion is attached. It remains our opinion that subsistence payments are not subject to wage withholding orders pursuant to §52-362. However, that Opinion is specifically limited to subsistence payments paid pursuant to §31-283a and does not address workers' compensation benefits. Id. at 150. See also, Crochetto v. Lynn Development Corporation, 223 Conn. 376 (1992) which holds that subsistence allowances pursuant to §31-283a are not workers' compensation benefits because they are "ad hoc" payments and are not required by either statute or regulation.

In general, workers' compensation benefits are not subject to garnishment or attachment by creditors. Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-320 provides in relevant part that "[a]ll sums due for compensation under the provisions of this chapter shall be exempt from attachment and execution and shall be nonassignable before and after award." However, case law has treated child support obligations differently from other debts or obligations. In State v. Reed, 5 Conn. Cir. 69 (1967), a case of first impression, the Circuit Court held that §31-320 did not bar the state from garnishment of workers' compensation funds in an action by the state to recover for aid and assistance rendered to the defendant's wife and children. The court stated that the purpose of §31-320 "is to protect both the beneficiary and his dependents from the claims of creditors and to prevent them from becoming public charges." Id. at 70. "The state which has furnished support to the claimant's dependent wife and children is not a creditor within the meaning of §31-320." Id. at 71-2. See, also, McDougald v Norton, 361 F. Supp. 1325, 1328 (l973). In reaching its decision, the court in Reed looked to cases in other jurisdictions with similar exemption statutes and found that its conclusion was in accord with the majority of such jurisdictions. State v. Reed, at 70-71. This reasoning has been followed in other jurisdictions, e.g., Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Lyons, 159 Ariz. 267, 76 P2nd. 619 (1988); Re Marriage of Brand, 123 Ill. App. 3rd. 1047, 463 NE2d. 1037 (1984); Petrie v. Petrie, 41 Mich. App. 80, 199 NW 2d 673; Donovan v. Donovan, 15 Mass App. 61, 443 NE 2d 432 (1982); American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Hicks, 159 GA. App. 214, 283 SE2nd. 18 (1981).

A careful reading of §52-362 supports our opinion that workers' compensation benefits are subject to wage withholding orders. Section 52-362(b) provides, in relevant part, that "[t]he superior court and any family support magistrate shall issue an order for withholding pursuant to this section against the earnings of an obligor to enforce a support order...." Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-362 (a)(3) defines earnings as "any debt accruing to an obligor by reason of his personal services... whether denominated as wages, salary, commission, bonus or otherwise...". (emphasis added). It is our opinion that benefits provided under Chapter 568 are a debt accruing to an obligor by reason of his personal services since, had the claimant not been employed, he would not be entitled to workers' compensation benefits. Presumably, an individual's wages are meant to support himself and his dependents. Benefits paid under Chapter 568 are paid in lieu of wages while an employee is unable to work because of a work-related injury. "The underlying objective (of the workers' compensation law) is to provide for the workman and those dependent on him." (citations omitted), Klapproth v Turner, 156 Conn 276, 279 (l968).

Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-362(l) further provides that "[t]he employer shall notify promptly the dependent or the support enforcement division as directed when the obligor terminates employment, makes a claim for workers' compensation... and provide the obligor's last known address and the name and address of the obligor's new employer if known." The mention of workers compensation in §52-362(l) indicates that the legislature intended to allow the support enforcement division to pursue workers' compensation benefits pursuant to §52-362. Otherwise the inclusion of workers' compensation in this section is meaningless and it is an axiom of statutory construction that every sentence, clause or phrase in a legislative enactment is presumed to have a purpose. See, Peck v Jacquemin,196 Conn. 53, 71, 491 A.2nd 1043 (l985). .

In conclusion, it is our opinion that the Support Enforcement Division cannot obtain a wage withholding order against subsistence allowances granted by the Workers' Rehabilitation Unit pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-283a because they are not earnings as defined in §52-362 nor are they workers' compensation benefits authorized by statute or regulation. However, other workers' compensation benefits awarded pursuant to Chapter 568 are subject to wage withholding orders because they are compensation payable by an employer to an employee for personal services i.e. earnings, and because the Support Enforcement Division is not a creditor within the meaning of §31-320. See, State v. Reed, supra.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Taka Iwashita

Assistant Attorney General

RB/TI/fl

Footnote: 1 Section 52-362 provides the statutory authority for the garnishment of wages and unemployment compensation for child support.