Opinion
CASE NO. 310 CRD-2-84
NOVEMBER 5, 1986
The claimant was represented by Joy C. Bylan, Staff Director, Connecticut Employees Union "Independent".
Respondent State of Connecticut was represented by Robert G. Girard, Esq., Assistant Attorney General.
This Petition for Review from the February 24, 1984 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Second District was heard August 16, 1984 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi and Commissioners Rhoda Loeb and Frank Verrilli.
FINDING AND AWARD
The Finding and Award of the Second District Commissioner is affirmed and adopted as the Finding and Award of this tribunal.
OPINION
No dispute here exists as to the occurrence of a compensable low back injury to claimant on January 4, 1979.
Claimant, a Mental Retardation Aide I, at Mansfield Training School sustained a 25% permanent partial back disability as a result. The parties executed a voluntary agreement and total disability benefits under 5-142(a) C.G.S. were paid. Maximum improvement was reached, April 13, 1982, and claimant sought benefits under Sec. 31-308(b)(13). A further voluntary agreement for the payment of a 25% permanent disability of the back was approved by the Second District Commissioner on October 1, 1982. At issue before the trial Commissioner was the question of what weekly compensation was applicable in the payment of the 130 weeks compensation involved in the approved 25% specific. The respondent State argued the weekly average wage to be $77.04 and the claimant, $144.43.
The claimant had been hired on an intermittent part-time basis on November 3, 1978 at an hourly rate of $3.91. On December 15, 1978 the claimant's conditions of employment changed to a full-time status. She was placed on the full-time payroll at $144.43 a week. The Commissioner below ruled that in attaining full-time status, the claimant had entered into a new contract of employment different from the part-time hourly arrangement she had enjoyed previously and that her average weekly wage for the new contract of employment was the rate on which calculations were to be based.
We agree. As the State Personnel Act clearly provides, there are different statutory definitions for "full-time employee", Sec. 5-196(l), "part-time employee", Sec. 5-196(q) and "intermittent employees", Sec. 5-235(a). The intermittent employee definition provides that payment for such employees shall be on an hourly basis and they shall perform services as required. Also intermittent employees shall not be considered permanent employees and shall have fewer statutory rights than permanent employees.
Although it is not clear from the Finding whether claimant was an "intermittent" or a "temporary" employee, either of those statuses is contractually different from "full-time" employee. Therefore, the claimant had entered into a new contract of employment on December 15, 1978, and her average weekly wage is to be based on the renumeration for that new status.
The decision of the trial Commissioner is affirmed.
Commissioners Loeb and Verrilli concur.