Insurance groups, teachers’ representatives split over bill to bar retirement‑period wage replacement

The Judiciary Committee heard sharply divided testimony on House Bill 6,969, which would clarify that a worker who voluntarily elects retirement and has no wages to replace is not eligible for temporary total incapacity (wage‑replacement) benefits under Conn. Gen. Stat. §31‑307a.

Brooke Foley of the Insurance Association of Connecticut said the bill restores the workers’‑compensation system’s core purpose — wage replacement — by preventing retired workers who lack wages from later claiming disability benefits. Foley cited Cochran (and related cases) and said the change protects the system from unexpected liabilities and ensures workers’ compensation remains focused on replacing lost earnings.

Opponents, including Donna Cipicello (workers’‑compensation attorney) and Melanie Kolick (legal counsel, Connecticut Education Association), said the Supreme Court’s recent decisions interpreted longstanding statutory language and that the change would create unfair results for workers forced into retirement because of injury or those with conditions (including occupational diseases) that manifest later. Cipicello argued that the statute historically allowed temporary total incapacity claims throughout a claimant’s life and that removing the right would shift costs to public programs and retirees.

Committee members sought more factual context and asked whether the Cochran/Martinelli decisions represented a recurring problem or narrow facts; witnesses gave differing views about how many claimants would be affected and urged the committee to consider the fiscal and policy implications. No vote was taken.