The rule from the 2003 Connecticut Supreme Court case of Hatt v. Burlington Coat Factory is that the insurer on the risk for the more recent of two injuries is responsible for the entire subsequent liability; but, Hatt was inapplicable here, where the claimant did not sustain two serial or combined disabling injuries but two separate and distinct knee injuries to each knee and either knee replacement would totally disable the claimant following surgery.
Gill v. Brescome Barton, Inc.
Compensation Review Board
September 24, 2012
This article requires premium access
This article requires premium access to Connecticut Law Tribune. Please sign in or subscribe to read the full text.