DocketNumber: No. CV92 0335582
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 6315
Judges: HADDEN, JUDGE
Filed Date: 6/30/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
Metcalf has filed an answer and several special defenses to the intervening complaint. The third and fourth special defenses allege that the intervening plaintiff violated the federal and state OSHA statutes.
Before the court at this time is the intervening plaintiff's motion to strike the third and fourth special defenses on the grounds that those defenses are legally insufficient with respect to an intervening plaintiff's claim seeking reimbursement of worker's compensation benefits which have been paid to an injured employee.
A motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a CT Page 6316 pleading; Mingachos v. CBS, Inc.,
According to Metcalf's memorandum of law, the purpose of the third and fourth special defenses is to "preclude the intervening plaintiff from seeking reimbursement from the defendant if the defendant proves at trial that it was in violation of the state and federal OSHA regulations." Therefore, despite claims to the contrary elsewhere in Metcalf's memorandum, it is clear that the two special defenses are alleging negligence on the part of the intervening plaintiff, which is the employer of the plaintiff, in an effort to limit the employer's recovery.
The issue raised by the motion to strike has been considered and determined by our Supreme Court, adversely to the claim of the defendant, as follows:
Bearing these principles in mind, we turn to the language of §
31-293 (a) to see whether it authorizes the special defense against the employer that the defendant seeks to assert in this case. The language is illuminating both for what it says and for what it does not say. The statute unconditionally authorizes reimbursement to the employer "[i]f such employer and employee join as parties plaintiff in such action and any damages are recovered." It provides for the apportionment of any damages award so that "the claim of the employer, as defined in this section, shall take precedence over that of the injured employee in the proceeds of such recover, after the deduction of reasonable and necessary expenditures, including attorneys' CT Page 6317 fees, incurred by the employee in effecting such recovery." Although the statute thus recognizes the propriety of some deductions as offsets to the employer's statutory subrogation claim, the statute does not make the employer's negligence a ground for limiting the employer's recovery. Durniak v. August Winter Sons, Inc.,222 Conn. 775 ,780 (1992).
Metcalf also claims that the alleged violations of the state and federal OSHA regulations are admissible in the trial of the case. Whether that is so can be ruled upon by the trial judge at the appropriate time. Whether that evidence is admissible at trial has no relevance with respect to the subject motion to strike.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Durniak, supra, the motion to strike the third and fourth special defenses is granted.
William L. Hadden, Jr., Judge