Decedent's BAC Did Not Preclude Worker's Compensation
by
Joseph C. Maya on Apr. 12, 2017
Accident & Injury Accident & Injury Car Accident Employment Workers' Compensation
Summary: Blog post about a widow who was allowed to keep receiving worker's compensation for her husband's death after he died while intoxicated in a one-car crash.
Contact the personal injury attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today. We can help you get the just compensation you deserve for your injuries or those of a loved one. For a free initial consultation, call 203-221-3100 or email JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
A widow was due workmen's compensation following her husband's death in a car accident while on business, because the husband's blood alcohol level, on its own, was not a disqualifying factor without further proof that the accident was caused by intoxication.
The State appealed a decision to award worker’s compensation to the wife of Raymond J. Liptak, who died in a fatal one-car accident that occurred while the decedent was on state business. The accident resulted from Liptak’s failure to negotiate a curve on route 1-95 in the town of Darien, Connecticut. Liptak was pronounced dead at the scene of the accident by the state medical examiner. The state alleged that the accident was caused by the serious misconduct and intoxication of the decedent, based on a blood sample that showed a 0.14 percent blood alcohol concentration (BAC). The commission found that Liptak’s injury arose out of and in the course of employment, and declined to amend the findings according to the decedent’s BAC. The state appealed the decision to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
According to state statutes § 31-284(a), worker’s compensation shall not be paid when the personal injury has been caused by the willful and serious misconduct of the injured employee or by his intoxication. However, this allegation of willful and serious misconduct is an affirmative defense to which the defendant State bears a burden of proof. Specifically, the State must show not only the misconduct itself, but also that the injury was caused by the misconduct. The state offered testimony by a state trooper who investigated the accident, who claimed there was a “good chance” that the alcohol and high BAC “could have had an effect.” The court found this testimony lacking and concluded: “In light of the sparsity of this testimony, we cannot say that the commissioner acted unreasonably in refusing to find that the state had carried its burden of demonstrating that, as a matter of fact, the injury was ‘caused by willful and serious misconduct . . . or by . . . intoxication.”
At Maya Murphy, P.C., our personal injury attorneys are dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their family members and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury, whether caused by a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident, a slip and fall, medical malpractice, a defective product, or otherwise. Our attorneys are not afraid to aggressively pursue and litigate cases and have extensive experience litigating personal injury matters in both state and federal courts, and always with regard to the unique circumstances of our client and the injury he or she has sustained.
Source: Liptak v. State, 407 A.2d 980; 176 Conn. 320 (Conn. Dec. 12, 1978)
