Workers’ Comp Exclusive Remedy Bars Negligence Claim

The plaintiff, a part-time employee of the defendant, Wonderland of Ice, Associations, Inc., d/b/a Skate New Haven, Inc., filed a claim sounding in negligence stemming from an injury allegedly sustained while on his employer’s premises. On December 11, 2022, the plaintiff claims he was on or near the ice rink but was not engaged in his employment. At the same time, another employee drove a Zamboni off the ice, onto an inclined area, and dismounted with the engine running. The machine then rolled backwards, pinning the plaintiff against the rink wall. The plaintiff alleges that the incident was caused by the negligence of the Zamboni operator.

Workers’ Compensation as Exclusive Remedy: Employee Negligence Claim Barred

The defendant filed a special defense alleging that the plaintiff’s claim is barred by the exclusive remedy of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The defendant subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that there are no genuine issues of material fact that judgment should enter as a matter of law for the defendant because the plaintiff’s claim is barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Act. In particular, the defendant argues that § 31-284(a) provides the only means of compensation for the plaintiff’s injuries sustained in the course of his employment because the plaintiff’s decision to file a Form 30C with the Workers’ Compensation Commission constitutes an election of the workers’ compensation forum to pursue damages, which requires the plaintiff to exhaust all administrative remedies before bringing suit. Because the plaintiffs’ workers’ compensation claim has been accepted and that remedy has not yet been exhausted, the defendant argues that the plaintiff cannot bring a suit for damages. The plaintiff counters that he was not engaged in the course of his employment at the time of his injury. An injury arises in the scope of the employment when it takes place within the period of the employment, at a place where the employee may reasonably be, and while he is reasonably fulfilling the duties of the employment or doing something incidental to it.

Proving Injury Outside Scope of Employment

The law provides that when a plaintiff has filed a workers’ compensation claim against a defendant employer seeking compensation for injuries, and the employee has been paid such benefits, the employee is thereafter precluded from seeking damages from the employer in a common law tort action. The remedy provided by the Act is the exclusive means for injured employees to seek compensation for an injury caused by the alleged negligence of fellow employees. In support of its argument, the defendant submitted the plaintiff’s Form 30C in which the plaintiff described the injury he suffered on the employer’s premises and his claim for compensation. The defendant also submitted an affidavit of a workers’ compensation adjuster which stated that the Commission accepted the plaintiff’s claim and billed the appropriate workers’ compensation carrier for the medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff. Additionally, there is witness testimony stating that the plaintiff filled out a time sheet, went into work, and began clearing snow away from the rink doors before the Zamboni struck him. The plaintiff failed to present any evidence contradicting the defendant’s evidence that he filed a Form 30C, that the Commission submitted bills for his medical treatment, and that his bills were paid by the workers’ compensation carrier. The court found that this constituted a determination by the Commission that the plaintiff’s injury occurred in the scope of his employment. Therefore, there is no dispute of material fact that the plaintiff was injured while engaged in the scope and course of his employment and the Workers’ Compensation Act is the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy. The court grants the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Sullivan v. Wonderland of Ice Assocs., Inc., No. NNH CV23-6142306 S, 2025 WL 685327 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 26, 2025)