Labor and Public Employees Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: SB-836
AN ACT CONCERNING PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY BENEFITS AND
Title: PENSION OFFSETS.
Vote Date: 2/18/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date: 2/9/2021
File No.: 39
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
Labor and Public Employment Committee
REASONS FOR BILL:
Employees who are forced to retire due to work related injuries can have their pension
payment offset by the municipalities.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
None submitted.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
CT EMPLOYEES UNION INDEPENDENT, SEIU LOCAL511
Current law is written to allow municipalities to "off-set" disability pension payments by
subtracting PPD payments, mandated by Workers' Compensation statute, from monthly
pension payments. OLR Report 200-R- clearly defines PPD as a benefit, not wages.
SAL LUCIANO, PRESIDENT, CT AFL-CIO
Current law allows municipalities to "off set" disability pension payments by subtracting PPD
payments, mandated by Workers' Compensation statute, from monthly pension payments.
This bill would prohibit this practice. OLR Report 200-R-1180 clearly defines PPD as a
benefit and not wages.
RICK HART, DIRECTOR, UNIFORMED PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
OF CT
Throughout the years, employees have come to expect to be justly compensated for an injury
occurring while on the job. The issue creates controversy when an employee is injured so
severely that they are unable to reach maximum medical improvement and are compelled to
retire with a disability pension. This pension is offset by the corresponding permanent partial
disability payment warranted through and defined by Workers' Compensation. This action
causes the employee to 'pay' for his own injury. Yet if an employee is injured and able to
return to work, the employee receives 100% of their weekly salary and 100% of the PPD
payment. This needs to be fixed.
ZAK LEAVY, LEGISLATIVE AND POLITICAL COORDINATOR, AFSCME COUNCIL 4
The police officers they represent do a dangerous job that puts them at risk of serious injury
throughout the work day. When they get injured, the Workers' Compensation system has
been there to provide needed compensation. If a worker suffers a serious injury that results in
a permanent disability, the Workers' Compensation award could be used to reduce their
pension. This bill allows worker's pensions to remain whole.
POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF CONNECTICUT
This is an important bill which will prohibit a municipality from taking back the pension
benefits that have been earned over the course of the employee's career. Currently, there are
some municipalities that will reduce the pension benefit to a retiree if that retiree suffered a
debilitating work-related injury. Under the workers' compensation statute when a physician
indicates that a claimant has reached maximum medical improvement from a work-related
injury, the claimant may receive permanent partial disability benefits if the injury consists of a
substantial loss of a body part or a permanent partial loss of function. A worker who has
sustained such loss should not be further punished by a reduction in his/her pension benefits.
This practice is unfair to workers and their families.
STACY ZIMMERMAN, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, SEIU CT STATE
COUNCIL
They support this bill because it has the ability to stabilize work places.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
BETSY GARA, EXECUTIVE, CT. COUNCIL OF SMALL TOWNS (COST)
This unfunded mandate will result in costs to the 140 municipalities that offer defined benefit
plans. This bill will discourage claimants from returning to work because the amount they will
be receiving in Workers' Compensation benefits would be more than what they receive when
employed. They would also be eligible to receive additional discretionary benefits. Health
benefits for both the claimants and their dependents would continue indefinitely. They are
also concerned about the sections that invalidate collective bargaining agreements. This sets
a difficult precedent regarding municipal budgeting. Towns and municipalities are already
being challenged due to the uncertain economic climate that COVID-19 has on them. If
passed, this bill would make it more difficult for towns to fund the delivery of critical programs
and services, including education, public health and public safety.
Page 2 of 3 SB-836
SCOTT McKEOWN, CONNECTICUT COUNCIL OF MUNICIPALITIES (CCM)
The costs associated with this proposal are incalculable and volatile. Claimants would receive
greater compensation when they are out of work than when they are employed. This creates
a financial incentive for claimants to remain out of work rather than settling a claim.
This proposal would circumvent the collective bargaining process with respect to these
provisions and establish a precedent that would enable future legislative action to invalidate
components of collective bargaining agreements. Claimants and their families would also still
receive other benefits such as health care, as long as the claimant remains eligible for
workers' compensation benefits. Unpredictable costs would push municipalities into a
precarious fiscal situation and jeopardize their ability to provide similar benefits to future
workers. The general assembly should be considering ways to reduce mandates and
stabilize property taxes instead of imposing new ones.
Reported by: Marie Knudsen, Assistant Clerk Date: March 21, 2021
Page 3 of 3 SB-836


Statutes affected:
Raised Bill: 7-450c
LAB Joint Favorable Substitute: 7-450c
File No. 39: 7-450c