Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity / Abuse of Process vs. Defense Counsel – Workers Comp as Exclusive Remedy

Two spouses sued the employer’s workers’ compensation defense lawyer and his firm for abuse of process and loss of consortium after a contentious comp case, alleging that the attorney’s litigation conduct (including allegedly improper motions and tactics) harmed them. The trial court granted a motion to strike and dismissed, concluding both that (1) the plaintiffs had not pleaded all the elements of abuse of process and (2) their claims were independently barred by the workers’ compensation exclusivity provision in § 31‑284 (a), because the alleged injuries arose out of and in the course of the employment‑related injury dispute. On appeal, the Appellate Court never reached the “interesting” abuse‑of‑process issues; it dismissed the appeal as moot because the plaintiffs failed to challenge the trial court’s workers’ compensation exclusivity holding—an alternative, independent ground for the judgment. As a result, even if the Appellate Court agreed with the plaintiffs on abuse of process, it could not give any practical relief. For claim professionals, the case underscores two points: first, workers’ compensation remains an exclusive remedy for employment‑related bodily injury and attempts to recast grievances with the comp litigation process as separate torts against defense counsel may be barred; and second, on appeal, every independent basis for a trial court’s ruling must be attacked or the appeal will fail. Because the plaintiffs did not challenge the exclusivity ruling, the court was “unable to afford the plaintiffs practical relief,” rendering the appeal moot. Ferrua v. Napoli Foods, Inc., AC 47975 (Conn. App. Ct. Dec. 30, 2025).