KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Connecticut’s Legislature has passed significant amendments to the state’s Workers’ Comp Act

• The action aims to curb the impact of the state Supreme Court’s ‘Gardner’ decision which left public and private employers in Connecticut facing a 235-percent jump in workers’ compensation insurance premiums

• The bill’s amendments include the addition of a new subsection to the Act allowing injured workers who have already collected PPD and 31-308a(a) benefits to up to an additional 60 weeks benefits when they remain unable to perform their usual work and they are actively participating in a vocational rehabilitation program

The Connecticut Legislature scrambled to pass legislation in response to the Connecticut Supreme Court’s controversial decision two months ago in the case of Beulah Gardner v. Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (SC 20994) (March 18, 2025).

The Gardner case involved a workers’ compensation claimant who argued for what most believed was a “novel” interpretation of C.G.S. Sections 31-308(a) and 31-308(b), which set forth the standards for a Workers’ Compensation administrative law judge (ALJ) to award a claimant temporary partial and permanent partial disability benefits.

In Gardner, the court ruled unanimously that an ALJ has the discretion under C.G.S. §31-308(b) to award a claimant, after he or she reaches maximum medical improvement, ongoing temporary partial disability benefits under §31-308(a) in lieu of permanent partial disability benefits under §31-308(b), up to the statutory maximum of 520 weeks.

Prior to the Gardner decision, a claimant’s entitlement to indemnity benefits shifted from temporary to permanent once that claimant reached maximum medical improvement (MMI). Claimants were then left to claim their entitlement to a permanent partial disability (PPD) award, based on a permanent partial impairment rating assigned by their treating physician, or establish that they were permanently, totally disabled from all forms of work.

The Workers’ Compensation Act pre-Gardner provided a balanced framework to facilitate a conclusion to an injured worker’s ongoing receipt of indemnity benefits and return to the workforce. Entitlement to temporary indemnity benefits ended only once the injured worker reached an endpoint in their medical treatment and their doctor believed that any remaining impairment they had was permanent in nature. The injured worker was then compensated by an award under §31-308(b) for the resulting permanent impairment and, in appropriate instances, assigned permanent work restrictions for their return to work.

This relatively formulaic approach created predictability for employers, who could make reasonable estimates as to the timeframe for their injured workers’ return to work. The end of ongoing indemnity benefits, coupled by the understanding that once at MMI their condition was stable, financially incentivized injured workers to return to the workforce, either in their pre-injury capacity or in a new role that fit with their permanent restrictions. While injured workers received payment during the time necessary to recover from their injuries and compensation for any resulting permanent impairment, it was within the confines of a system that discouraged long term absences from the workforce, especially once an injured worker was physically capable of returning to some form of work. Both the interests of the injured worker and Connecticut employers were considered.

However, this balance was completely upended by the Gardner decision, which opened the door for injured workers to forgo a PPD award in exchange for ongoing temporary partial disability benefits for up to 10 years. Further disrupting the system was the fact that the court left the decision on whether to award temporary partial disability benefits or a PPD award to the discretion of the ALJs. Yet it provided no guideposts as to when it might be appropriate to award temporary partial disability over a PPD award or how significant an injury might need to be to warrant a ten-year temporary partial benefit award.

The option to seek Section 31-308(a) benefits in lieu of PPD benefits could certainly be advantageous for a claimant who received a modest PPD rating but sustained an injury that resulted in their significant ongoing loss of earning capacity.  The court formulated their decision in the factual context of Ms. Gardner’s case, where her 8-percent rating of the non-dominant hand, worth only 12.4 weeks of PPD benefits, prevented her from returning to work at her original job. The court’s decision would have allowed her to seek temporary partial disability benefits for up to 10 years instead of receiving her PPD award.

The decision was alarming to private and public employers, as well as their insurance carriers, as the court’s decision was anticipated to significantly increase the indemnity exposure for respondents in workers’ compensation cases. A state and business analysis predicted that public and private employers were facing a 235-percent jump in workers’ compensation insurance premiums, costing municipal, state and private employers an estimated $320 million a year. The City of Meriden expressed that it was anticipating its premium would increase by $1.2 million dollars next year, largely driven by Gardner’s impact.

The negative reaction to the Gardner decision resulted in intense negotiations and an unusually speedy resolution agreed to by parties traditionally adverse to one another on issues involving business and insurance — unions, business groups, trial lawyers and insurers.  The Legislature was able to quickly pass new amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act, limiting Gardner’s impact, by including them in a partisan appropriations bill.

The bill, which was passed by the House and Senate on May 19, 2025, responds to the Gardner decision by adding a new subsection to the Act, §31-308a (c), which reduces 31-308a(a) eligibility from 520 weeks to 60 weeks for a claimant who remains unable to perform his or her usual work, and actively participates in a vocational rehabilitation program. The 60-week limit is reduced by any temporary partial disability benefits the claimant already collected pursuant to §31-308a(a). While this amendment does expand the amount certain injured workers can receive in post-PPD benefits, it is a dramatic reduction from the 10 years of benefits the court was prepared to allow.

The amendment was also a clear message from the Legislature that it did not intend to disrupt the efforts to return injured workers back to the workforce by providing them access to multiple years of “temporary” post-MMI benefits. This is evidenced by the fact the Legislature tied an injured workers’ entitlement to the additional 60 weeks of §31-308a(c) benefits to participation in or the completion of a vocational rehabilitation program.

The controversy caused by the Gardner decision also provided the legislature with an opportunity to fix some perceived shortcomings in the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act).  For example, the only benefit owed to an unmarried worker who died in work-related accident was payment of his or her funeral. The new bill allows for certain benefits to be paid to a decedent’s parents. Another issue that for many years concerned attorneys representing injured workers involved the number of weeks of permanent partial disability benefits the Act allowed for a cervical spine injury. The statute provides for 117 weeks for total loss of use of the cervical spine (paralysis), while the statute allows 374 weeks for a lumbar injury. The new law increases the number of weeks for a cervical injury from 117 to 208 weeks.

To summarize, the bill amends Connecticut’s Workers’ Compensation Act as follows:

1. Temporary partial disability benefits for a claimant who has reached MMI and has received a rating is limited to 60 weeks and the clamant must participate in a vocational rehabilitation program;
2. An ALJ’s discretion has been deleted from Section 31-308(b) and the statute mandates that the ALJ shall award PPD benefits in lieu of other compensation;
3. In death cases where the decedent had no one wholly dependent upon him or her, the death benefit is divided evenly among the parents of the decedent for not more than 312 weeks;
4. PPD for the cervical spine increased from 117 weeks to 208 weeks. So, a 10% rating of the cervical spine is now worth 20.8 weeks at the claimant’s base rate, rather than 11.7 weeks;
5. The esophagus (180 weeks) and the intestinal tract (347 weeks) are now scheduled body parts;
6. The statute now specifically states that an ALJ cannot award TP or PPD benefits to a claimant who remains totally disabled.

Once signed into law, the new PPD schedule and death benefit allocation will go into effect on July 1, 2025. The bill indicates that the amendments to C.G.S. §31-308 apply to existing cases filed on or after July 1, 1993. Gov. Lamont is expected to sign the bill into law in the next few days.

If you have questions about how this impacts your business, please contact:

• Brian L. Smith
• Samantha K. Levasseur
• Michael D. Schweitzer
• Damon M. Gruber
• Sean J. McKinley
• Esther F. Omoloyin
• Or another member of our Workers’ Compensation practice group