Raymond J. and Jacquelyn M. Byrne - Page 11




                                       - 11 -                                         
               provided for payments based solely on injury or                        
               sickness arising out of employment.  The courts,                       
               therefore, were required to make an inquiry as to the                  
               portion of the statute under which payments were                       
               awarded.  * * *                                                        
                         *    *    *    *    *    *    *                              
                    * * *  Here, however, � 372(a) makes no                           
               distinction between payments for work-related and non-                 
               work-related disabilities and therefore it is not a                    
               dual-purpose statute. * * *  [Id. at 1450.]                            
          Unlike the statute in Kane, CGC section 75061(a) specifically               
          provides for disability retirement benefits based solely on                 
          injury or disease arising out of, and in the course of, judicial            
          service.8  We hold that the Judges’ Retirement Law is a dual-               
          purpose statute.9                                                           

               8We point out that 28 U.S.C. sec. 372(a) is virtually                  
          identical to CGC sec. 75060(a) in that neither of those                     
          provisions distinguishes between work-related and non-work-                 
          related disabilities.  However, whereas 28 U.S.C. sec. 372(a)               
          stands alone, CGC sec. 75060(a) must be read together with CGC              
          sec. 75061(a), which defines the classes of persons covered under           
          the disability retirement system.  That section does distinguish            
          between work-related and non-work-related disabilities.                     
               9Respondent argues that the benefits Judge Byrne received              
          were not in the nature of workers’ compensation.  He points to              
          the award of permanent disability payments of $224 per week as “a           
          perfect example of how a person injured on the job is compensated           
          through worker’s compensation and is made whole for his injury”,            
          and he claims that the disability retirement payments, unlike the           
          permanent disability payments, were not intended to make Judge              
          Byrne “whole for his injury”.  We might agree that the permanent            
          disability payments are a perfect example of compensation                   
          received under a workers’ compensation act; however, the question           
          we have before us is whether the disability retirement benefits             
          were received under a statute in the nature of a workers’                   
          compensation act.  A statute in the nature of a workers’                    
          compensation act gives “recovery in lieu of or supplemental to              
          workmen’s compensation which may be in excess of that received              
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011