Connecticut—Administrative Law Judge’s Discretion to Award Temporary Partial Incapacity Benefits After Maximum Medical Improvement
On March 18, 2025, the Supreme Court of Connecticut, in
Gardner v. Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Services, considered whether an administrative law judge (ALJ) has authority to award ongoing temporary partial incapacity benefits to a claimant who has reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) in lieu of converting the benefits to permanent partial disability.
In this case, a claimant sought an award of ongoing temporary partial incapacity benefits under Connecticut statute 31-308 after reaching MMI and becoming eligible for permanent partial disability benefits. The workers compensation administrative and appellate courts found that the claimant’s benefits were required to be converted to permanent partial disability, reasoning that the statute does not provide discretion to award ongoing temporary partial incapacity benefits after a claimant has reached MMI.
On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the plain language of the statute gives an ALJ discretion to award a claimant, after reaching MMI, ongoing temporary partial disability benefits up to the statutory maximum of 520 weeks. In its decision, the court relied on language in section (b) of statute 31-308, which provides that the ALJ
may, but is not required, to award permanent partial disability benefits in lieu of other compensation, to find that other workers compensation benefits, including ongoing temporary incapacity benefits under 31-308 (a), may be awarded.
Pennsylvania—CBD Oil Reimbursement
On March 20, 2025, in
Schmidt v. Schmidt, Kirifides and Rassias, PC, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled that cannabinoid oil (CBD oil) can be reimbursed to an injured employee under the state Workers' Compensation Act (the Act).
In this case, a WC claimant was prescribed CBD oil by his treating physician as a pain management remedy for his workplace injury. The claimant purchased the CBD oil over the counter and submitted the receipts for reimbursement by the employer, which the employer denied.
In considering the case, the supreme court relied on Pennsylvania statute 306(f.1)(1)(i) which requires employers to pay for
medicines and supplies. The court interpreted the term "medicines and supplies" to mean any item that is part of a healthcare provider's treatment plan for a work-related injury. The court noted that nothing in the Act requires "medicines and supplies" to be regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and that no evidence was presented showing that purchasing the CBD oil was illegal. The court also determined that the claimant was to be
fully reimbursed for the cost of the CBD oil, and he was not considered a provider that needed to abide by the cost containment provisions of the WC Act and attendant regulations.
For more information on other cases monitored by NCCI's Legal Division, visit previous Court Case Updates and
Court Case Insights under the
Legal section of
INSIGHTS on
ncci.com.
This article is provided solely as a reference tool to be used for informational purposes only. The information in this article shall not be construed or interpreted as providing legal or any other advice. Use of this article for any purpose other than as set forth herein is strictly prohibited.
