Page 24 - CLT090720

24 ¦ SEPTEMBER 7, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

SUPREME COURT not be considered when measuring disability
benefits. The court disagreed, and held that the
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW • LABOR LAW commissioner properly considered the function-
ality of the replacement heart, and affirmed the
board’s decision.

Workers’ Compensation Commissioner CREDITORS’ AND DEBTORS’ RIGHTS •
May Consider Functionality of REAL ESTATE
Replacement Organ in Determining
Benefits Court Finds Taxes and Insurance
Premiums can Only be Recovered
CASE: Vitti v. City of Milford by Deficiency Judgments after Strict
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court Foreclosure
DOC. NO.: SC 20350
COURT OPINION BY: Robinson
DATE: August 24, 2020 • PAGES: 11
CASE: JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. Essaghof
Plaintiff was employed as a police officer with COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court
the defendant city from 1993 to 2014. In 2010 the DOC. NO.: SC 20090
plaintiff was diagnosed with giant cell myocardi- COURT OPINION BY: McDonald
tis, and underwent a successful heart transplant. DATE: August 20, 2020 • PAGES: 15
He subsequently returned to work, and filed for Defendants secured a loan with a mortgage deed
workers’ compensation pursuant to the Heart on their real property in 2006. Two years later,
and Hypertension Act. In determining the in- they executed a loan modification, and defaulted
demnity award, the commissioner found plaintiff shortly thereafter. Plaintiff commenced a strict
was entitled to an award of 23 percent permanent foreclosure action in 2009, and in 2015 the court
partial disability benefits, based on the loss of his rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure in favor
native heart and the success of the transplanted of the plaintiff. Defendants appealed, and plain-
heart. Plaintiff appealed from the commission- tiff moved for the trial court to order the defen-
er’s finding, arguing he was entitled to 100 per- dants to reimburse plaintiff for property taxes
cent benefits as a result of the loss of his native and insurance premiums advanced by plaintiff
heart, and the commissioner should not have during the pending appeal. The trial court grant-
considered the function of the transplanted heart ed the motion, and the appellate court upheld the
because it should be akin to a prosthetic device trial court’s finding. Defendants appealed, argu-
for the purposes of awarding benefits. The board ing the trial court abused its discretion because
agreed with the commissioner, and plaintiff ap- the court’s awards in a strict foreclosure action
pealed. Plaintiff argued the term “loss of the were limited to money damages in a deficiency
member or organ” in the Act refers only to the judgment. The court agreed, finding that the
native heart, and the transplanted heart should order did not fit within the statutory remedies

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune