JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN.
The respondent-employer petitioned for review from the Commissioner acting for the Seventh District's December 9, 1997 Finding and Award in this matter. One of the issues raised by the employer's appeal is whether the trial commissioner's imposition of a fine under § 31-313 in the amount of $350.00 per day for each day that the respondent employer violated § 31-313 was proper. This is the sole issue before us today.
There are other issues presented for review by the respondent's Petition For Review, but as noted above the only issue considered in this opinion is whether the trial commissioner's imposition of a penalty in the amount of $350.00 per day for each day the respondent violated § 31-313 was proper. The remaining issues will be considered by the Compensation Review Board at a later date.
As to this issue, the respondent contends that the amount of the fine imposed by the trial commissioner is clearly in excess of his authority. We agree. As matters currently stand through the date of this hearing, the respondent-employer, pursuant to the commissioner's ruling, is subject to a fine amount now in excess of $95,000. The trial commissioner cited as his authority for the imposition of the fine § 31-313. Sec. 31-313(c) provides:
(c) Whenever the commissioner finds that an employer has failed to comply with the transfer requirements of subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of this section, or has failed to comply with any transfer order issued by him pursuant to this section,
he may
assess a civil penalty of not more than five hundred
dollars against the employer. Any appeal of a penalty assessed pursuant to this subsection shall be taken in accordance with the provisions of § 31-301. Any penalties collected under the provisions of this subsection shall be paid over to the Second Injury Fund or its successor. (emphasis ours)
Clearly the amount of the fine imposed by the trial commissioner exceeded the dollar limit set out in § 31-313 (c). The language in § 31-313(c) could not be more clear.
While it is possible that in some cases the legislature has not said what it meant, nevertheless, when statutory language is clear and unambiguous we must presume that it meant what it said. "It is well settled that a statute must be applied as its words direct." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)
All Brand
Importers. Inc. v. Dept. of Liquor Control,
213 Conn. 184, 194,
567 A.2d 1156 (1989);
Pascarelli
v. Moliterno Stone Sales, Inc.,
44 Conn. App. 397, 400,
689 A.2d 1132, cert. denied,
240 Conn. 926,
692 A.2d 1282 (1997).
Trankovich v. Frenish, Inc. 47 Conn. App. 628, 631 (1998).
We therefore reverse and vacate that portion of the trial commissioner's December 9, 1997 Finding and Award insofar as it levies a penalty in excess of that permitted by § 31-313(c). Under these circumstances, it appears that the only calculable means of carrying out the trial commissioner's intention is to modify the amount of the fine consistent with the § 31-313(c). We therefore modify the amount of the fine imposed by the trial commissioner and conclude that the penalty imposed should be $350.00 per day up to a maximum of $500.00 as permitted by § 31-313(c).
Commissioners Michael S. Miles and Stephen B. Delaney concur.
Lorraine Lockery Administrative Hearings Lead Specialist Compensation Review Board Workers' Compensation Commission