The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed a Compensation Appeals Board decision granting workers' compensation benefits to the widow of a state employee, rejecting arguments from the state Adjutant General that the claim was time-barred and lacked sufficient work-related injury evidence.
In *Appeal of State of N.H. (Adjutant General)* (2025 N.H. 40), the court upheld benefits awarded to Kimberly Galimberti under RSA 281-A:26. The case was argued May 6, 2025, with the opinion issued Sept. 12, 2025.
The dispute centered on benefits for Galimberti's deceased husband, who worked multiple jobs including as a volunteer and full-time firefighter with the Farmington and Middleton Fire Departments starting around 2002, and later full-time at Pease Tradeport in Portsmouth beginning around 2008. The State of New Hampshire (Adjutant General) employed the decedent at Pease Tradeport.
According to findings by the Compensation Appeals Board, the decedent had previously smoked but stopped in 2000. The record indicates his work history included both firefighting duties and employment at the military installation.
The employer, represented through Constitution State Services as third-party administrator, raised three primary arguments on appeal. First, they contended the widow's claim was time-barred under RSA 281-A:42-d. Second, they argued the CAB incorrectly found a work-related injury. Third, they claimed the board failed to apply the proper version of RSA 281-A:17 that was in effect on the date of injury.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Countway, rejected all three arguments and affirmed the CAB's decision. The court's analysis focused on the statutory framework governing workers' compensation death benefits and the specific circumstances surrounding the decedent's employment and health history.
The case highlights the complex intersection between military employment, firefighting duties, and workers' compensation law in New Hampshire. The decedent's work at Pease Tradeport, a former Air Force base that now operates as a civilian airport and commercial facility, placed him under state employment for workers' compensation purposes.
Pease Tradeport, located in Portsmouth, serves as a significant economic hub in the Seacoast region and employs numerous state workers in various capacities. The facility's unique status as a former military installation that transitioned to civilian use creates particular considerations for employment law matters.
The timing issue raised by the employer under RSA 281-A:42-d represents a common defense in workers' compensation cases, where defendants argue that claims filed beyond statutory deadlines should be dismissed. The court's rejection of this argument suggests the CAB properly determined the claim was filed within applicable time limits.
The work-relatedness determination involves analysis of whether the decedent's injury or illness arose out of and in the course of his employment. Given the decedent's history as both a firefighter and state employee, this likely required careful consideration of occupational health risks and exposure patterns.
The third issue regarding which version of RSA 281-A:17 should apply reflects the complex nature of workers' compensation law, where statutory changes over time can affect benefit calculations and eligibility requirements. Courts must determine which version of the law controls based on when injuries occur versus when claims are filed or decided.
Bernard & Merrill, PLLC of Manchester represented the state employer, with attorney Kevin W. Stuart handling both briefing and oral argument. Shaheen & Gordon, P.A. of Nashua represented Galimberti, with attorney Jared P. O'Connor presenting her case.
The decision reinforces the principle that workers' compensation benefits serve as a crucial safety net for families of employees who suffer work-related injuries or illnesses. The court's affirmance ensures Galimberti will receive the benefits determined appropriate by the CAB under state law.
This case also demonstrates the ongoing legal challenges surrounding workers' compensation in New Hampshire, particularly for state employees working in specialized environments like former military installations. The intersection of firefighting duties and other state employment creates unique occupational health considerations.
The opinion remains subject to potential motions for rehearing under Rule 22, as noted in the court's standard notice. The final version will be published in the New Hampshire Reports after any editorial corrections.
For practitioners, this decision provides guidance on timing requirements, work-relatedness standards, and statutory interpretation issues in New Hampshire workers' compensation law. The affirmance suggests courts will carefully scrutinize challenges to CAB determinations, particularly regarding benefit eligibility for surviving spouses.
The case number 2024-0471 indicates the matter moved relatively quickly through the appeals process, reaching final resolution within the same calendar year it was filed with the Supreme Court.