September 27, 2018
Last week, the Connecticut Supreme Court denied a widow her bid to receiving benefits under the state Workers’ Compensation Act after a federal law judge already granted her benefits under the Federal Longshore Act.
In Katherine Filosi, Executor (Estate of Donald L. Filosi, Jr.), Et. Al. v. Electric Boat Corp. Et.Al, at issue before the Court was whether an employer is collaterally estopped from challenging an employee’s eligibility for benefits under the state of Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Act because of an earlier decision by a federal administrative law judge awarding benefits to that employee under the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act.
The Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, also known as the Longshore Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., provides benefits for maritime employees, such as a shipyard workers like Donald Filosi.His wife, Katherine Filosi would normally be entitled to benefits on his behalf, but not in this case.
Donald Filosi was employed by the Electric Boat Corporation (“Electric Boat”) beginning in 1961 until his retirement in 1998.Throughout his employment, Mr. Filosi was exposed to asbestos.Mr. Filosi was also a cigarette smoker from the age of 14 until he died in 2012 of lung cancer.Mrs. Filosi then filed a claim with the Workers’ Compensation Commission under the state Workers’ Compensation Act, and then filed a claim under the federal Longshore Act.A hearing was held on the federal Longshore Act claims.An administrative law judge ruled that although Mr. Filosi’s smoking contributed to his lung cancer, ultimately the judge ruled that the asbestos exposure was a “substantial contributing cause” to his lung cancer.
The Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Commissioner dismissed Ms. Filosi’s claims which were later reversed by the State of Connecticut Compensation Review Board.Electric Boat appealed this decision, arguing that the decision to award benefits by the administrative law judge under the federal forum used a “lower standard” to decide the issue of causation. Electric Boat felt they should have been able to litigate the claims using the state standard which was higher.
Although the federal and state standards do differ, the Court reasoned that the substantial factor standard was employed by the administrative law judge, holding that the Compensation Review Board’s decision that collaterally estopped Electric Boat was proper in this case.
Defendants should pay close attention to the procedural rules in states where they have pending claims. Keeping an eye out for these issues and raising objections in a timely manner is always a good way to go.