4793 CRB-4-04-3 (2005). Piscitelli v. Textron Lycoming Division.
Case Date | July 07, 2005 |
Court | Connecticut |
Connecticut Workers Compensation
2005.
4793 CRB-4-04-3 (2005).
Piscitelli v. Textron Lycoming Division
CASE NO. 4793
CRB-4-04-3COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION July 7, 2005GENE PISCITELLI, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT v.
TEXTRON LYCOMING DIVISION, EMPLOYER and
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY, INSURER, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEESAPPEARANCES: The claimant was represented by Howard Eckenrode, Esq., Meuser,
Eckenrode and Hayes, 86 Cherry Street, P.O. Box 507, Milford, CT 06460.
The respondents were represented by Jason Dodge, Esq., Pomeranz,
Drayton and Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Boulevard, Glastonbury, CT 06033.This Petition for Review from the
March 17, 2004 Finding and Award in Part and Dismissal in Part of the
Commissioner acting for the Fourth District was heard October 22, 2004 before a
Compensation Review Board panel consisting of Commissioners Charles F. Senich,
Leonard S. Paoletta and Howard H. Belkin.OPINIONCHARLES F. SENICH, COMMISSIONER. The claimant, Gene Piscitelli,
has appealed from the March 17, 2004 Finding and Award in Part and Dismissal in
Part of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District.1 We affirm the
decision of the trial commissioner.
Initially, we will address the respondents' September 3, 2004
Motion to Dismiss based upon the claimant's failure to file a timely brief. In
response to that motion the claimant filed a Motion for Leave to File Brief Out
of Time on September 10, 2004. The claimant's counsel explained that through an
inadvertent error he failed to prepare and file a timely brief and stated that
he had alleged a good basis for the appeal. The claimant filed his brief on
September 29, 2004 which allowed the respondents adequate time to file a reply
brief prior to the oral argument before this panel on October 22, 2004. The
respondents have not alleged any prejudice, therefore, we deny the respondents'
Motion to Dismiss. See, Fox-Gould v. Brooks Pharmacy, 4215 CRB-2-00-3 (May 23,
2001).
The pertinent facts are as follows. The claimant has a complex
medical history. Dr. Eric M. Garver has been treating the claimant for left
knee problems due to an injury the claimant sustained in the 1980's. Claimant's
Exhibit YY, June 19, 2003 Deposition of Dr. Eric M. Garver, p. 5. The claimant
underwent ongoing treatment for that injury which spanned over decades. He went
through over twenty surgical procedures which were performed by various
surgeons in three different states. He endured extensive physical therapy and
was prescribed anti-inflammatory and pain medications. He had knee injections
and used a TENS unit.2 Id., p. 6. As a result of this knee injury the claimant
experienced chronic posttraumatic arthritis of the entire knee. Id.
On November 4, 1989 the claimant sustained an accepted
compensable left knee injury at work as a result of an electrocution accident
while working for the respondent-employer. January 9, 2002 Transcript, p. 45.
At the formal hearing the claimant sought compensability of injuries to his
hands, wrists, fingers, left hip, right foot, right toe and back relating to
that same incident. The claimant also sought compensation for a related
psychological claim, pain management and § 31-312 C.G.S. reimbursement for
prescriptions and mileage. Additionally, the claimant made a claim for
temporary total disability benefits.3
The claimant testified about the medical problems which he
believed were the result of the November 4, 1989 injury. He described the pain
medications he was taking and the side effects he experienced from the drugs.
He listed many of the doctors he had treated with or been evaluated by. The
claimant testified that he believed that he was unable to work. He described
how his activity level changed after the injury. He testified that he had done...
To continue reading
Request your trial