3899 CRB-03-98-09 (1999). Murray v. Black Tie Limousine.

• Court: Connecticut

Connecticut Workers Compensation 1999. 3899 CRB-03-98-09 (1999). Murray v. Black Tie Limousine CASE NO. 3899 CRB-03-98-09COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION NOVMEBER 4, 1999RICHARD MURRAY CLAIMANT-APPELLEE v. BLACK TIE LIMOUSINE EMPLOYER NO RECORD OF INSURANCE RESPONDENT-APPELLANT and GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. INSURER RESPONDENT-APPELLEE and SECOND INJURY FUND RESPONDENT-APPELLEEAPPEARANCES: The claimant was represented by Joseph B. Barnes, Esq., 8 North Street, Milford, CT 06460. The respondent employer was represented by William C. Brown, Esq., McGann, Bartlett, and Brown, 281 Hartford Turnpike, Vernon, CT 06066. The respondent insurer was represented by David J. Weil, Esq., Nuzzo and Roberts, L.L.C., One Town Center, P. O. Box 747, Cheshire, CT 06410, who did not appear at oral argument. The Second Injury Fund was represented by Taka Iwashita, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, P. O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120, who did not appear at oral argument. This Petition for Review from the September 10, 1998 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Third District was heard April 30, 1999 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Angelo L. dos Santos and Stephen B. Delaney. OPINION JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The respondent employer has filed a petition for review from the September 10, 1998 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Third District.(fn1) In that decision the trial commissioner concluded that the claimant, a limousine driver, was an employee rather than an independent contractor, and further concluded that the claimant had sustained compensable injuries when he was involved in an automobile accident. In support of its appeal, the respondent contends that (1) the claimant was an independent contractor rather than an employee; (2) the claimant's medical condition was not caused by the accident; (3) the claimant's medical treatment was not properly authorized; and (4) the award of temporary total disability benefits is not supported by the medical evidence. The trial commissioner found that the claimant was employed as a limousine driver for the respondent on November 25, 1994, when he was involved in an automobile accident while driving passengers. He was taken by an ambulance to the hospital and released, and on the following day he was diagnosed with a back sprain/strain. The claimant was treated from December 1, 1994 through March 30, 1995 by Dr. Rippel for right rib, lumbar and cervical pain. The claimant subsequently treated with Dr. Kornblut, a chiropractor, who diagnosed post-traumatic cervical lumbar radiculitis. Dr. Kornblut referred the claimant to Dr. Katz, an orthopedist, who diagnosed hyperextension injuries to the...