4254 CRB-7-00-6 (2001). Labadie v. Norwalk Rehabilitation Services.
Court | Connecticut |
Connecticut Workers Compensation
2001.
4254 CRB-7-00-6 (2001).
Labadie v. Norwalk Rehabilitation Services
CASE NO. 4254
CRB-7-00-6COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONJune 21, 2001ROSE LABADIE CLAIMANT-APPELLEE v.NORWALK
REHABILITATION SERVICES EMPLOYERand CNA INSURANCE CO.
INSURER RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTSAPPEARANCES:
The claimant was represented by
Gregory S. Kimmel, Esq., Kimmel and Kimmel, L.L.C., 9 Morgan Avenue, Norwalk,
CT 06852-2013. The respondents were represented by Diane M.
Lord, Esq. and Elizabeth B. Zaccardi, Esq., Law Offices of Grant H. Miller,
Jr., 29 S. Main Street, Suite 310N, West Hartford, CT 06107-2445.
This Petition for Review from the June 12, 2000
Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Seventh District was heard
February 23, 2001 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the
Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners George A. Waldron
and Ernie R. Walker. OPINION JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The respondents have petitioned
for review from the June 12, 2000 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting
for the Seventh District. They contend on appeal that the trier erred by
concluding that the claimant's injury, which occurred while she was en route to
a job assignment, arose out of and in the course of her employment. We find
error, and reverse. Also, as the award does not sufficiently address one of the
material factual issues, we remand this matter to the trial commissioner for
additional findings.
The parties stipulated to the following set of facts. On
February 18, 1998, the claimant was employed by the respondent Norwalk
Rehabilitation Services (NRS) as a certified Nursing Assistant/Home Health Care
worker. She was also employed by Atrium Homecare in the same capacity. Both
jobs required her to visit the homes of various patients in order to provide
nursing care. On the morning in question, the claimant left her apartment and
walked two flights down the stairs to another unit in the same building to tend
to Peter Schmidt, a patient of Atrium Homecare. After finishing those duties,
the claimant left the building and boarded a bus for the purpose of going to an
apartment on Knickerbocker Avenue in Stamford. This apartment was the home of a
Mrs. Karwon, who was a patient of the respondent NRS. At approximately 9:20
a.m., the claimant exited the bus and began crossing Hope Street, whereupon she
was struck by a motor vehicle and seriously injured.
According to the factual stipulation, NRS would reimburse the
claimant for bus fare expended in traveling from one patient's home to the next
patient's home whenever she happened to see more than one patient in a single
day. However, NRS would not reimburse the claimant for bus fare from her home
to the dwelling of her first daily patient, nor would it reimburse her for bus
fare spent in traveling home from her last assignment. In his Finding and
Award, the trial commissioner incorporated these two stipulated findings with a
reservation. Citing the claimant's testimony, the trier determined that it was
unclear whether NRS reimbursed the claimant for her travel to Mrs. Karwon's
home, as the claimant never knew what was being reimbursed. Findings, ¶
25, citing Nov. 5, 1999 Deposition, pp. 20-23.
The trier also found that the claimant rarely went to her
employer's Norwalk office, and that she received her assignments and paychecks
at home. She filed her reports from her home, and likewise made most of her
communications with the office via telephone from her apartment. Based upon
these subordinate findings, he determined that the claimant's home was
"tantamount to a satellite office of Employer." ¶ 22. He went on to hold
that the claimant's work required her to use the public highways, and found
that her boarding of the bus was to the benefit of her employer, as it enabled
her to get to her assignment. On the strength of this reasoning, he concluded
that the claimant's injury was compensable, from which decision the respondents
have appealed.
Normally, this board is required to apply a very deferential
standard in reviewing the factual findings of a trial commissioner. "[T]he
quintessence of a trier's factfinding prerogative is the power to determine the
weight of the evidence presented and the credibility of the testimony offered
by both lay and expert witnesses." Goldberg v. Ames Department Stores, 4160
CRB-1-99-2 (Dec. 19, 2000); Pallotto v. Blakeslee Prestress, Inc., 3651
CRB-3-97-7 (July 17, 1998). It is not our role to retry cases on appeal,
replacing the trier's findings with our own, because the trier is generally in
a far superior position to evaluate the reliability of the parties' various
evidentiary submissions.
The record of the instant case, however, contains no evidence
in the form of marked exhibits, and there is no indication that the trial
commissioner heard any testimony. Instead, the parties agreed to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial