5273 CRB-6-07-9 (2009). Chmielewski v. Reno Machine Company, Inc.
Court | Connecticut |
Connecticut Workers Compensation
2009.
5273 CRB-6-07-9 (2009).
Chmielewski v. Reno Machine Company, Inc
CASE NO. 5273
CRB-6-07-9COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONMAY 4, 2009TADEUSZ CHMIELEWSKI CLAIMANT-APPELLEE v. RENO
MACHINE COMPANY, INC. EMPLOYER RESPONDENT-APPELLEE and TRAVELERS PROPERTY &
CASUALTY INSURER RESPONDENT-APPELLEE and HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP INSURER
RESPONDENT-APPELLANT APPEARANCES: The claimant was represented by John C. Lewis,
Esq., Brignole, Bush and Lewis, Attorneys and Counselors at Law, 73 Wadsworth
Street, Hartford, CT 06106 who did not file a brief nor appear at oral argument
as the issues did not involve the claimant. The respondent Reno Machine
Company, Inc. was represented by Richard Bartlett, Esq., McGann, Bartlett &
Brown, 111 Founders Plaza, Suite 1201, East Hartford, CT 06108. The respondent
Travelers Property & Casualty was represented by Andrew J. Hern, Esq., Law
Offices of Andrew J. Hern, 221 Main Street, 5th Floor, Hartford, CT 06106. The
respondent Hartford Insurance Group was represented by Lisa A. Bunnell, Esq.,
and Meg Crawford, Esq., Montstream & May, 655 Winding Brook Drive, P.O. Box
1087, Glastonbury, CT 06033-6087. This Petition for Review(fn1) from the
September 11, 2007 Finding & Award/Finding & Dismissal of the
Commissioner acting for the Sixth District was heard February 24, 2009 before a
Compensation Review Board panel consisting of Commissioners Peter C.
Mlynarczyk, Randy L. Cohen and David W. Schoolcraft. OPINIONPETER
C. MLYNARCZYK, COMMISSIONER.The present case is a dispute between two
insurance carriers as to the obligation to pay for the claimant's surgery and
assume ongoing obligation for this claim. The trial commissioner found the
claimant had suffered two compensable injuries; but that the initial injury
caused his need for surgery. The respondent Hartford Insurance Group has
appealed, asserting that this result is inconsistent with the precedent in Hatt
v. Burlington Coat Factory, 263 Conn. 279 (2003). We conclude the trial
commissioner reached legally sound conclusions consistent with the facts in
this case. We affirm the Finding & Award/Finding & Dismissal and
dismiss this appeal.The trial commissioner reached the following conclusions of fact.
He found the claimant had been employed by Reno Machine Company, Inc. ("Reno")
during all times relevant to the dispute. The respondent Reno had paid benefits
for an October 25, 1999 lifting injury which occurred at work. Following that
injury the claimant had been treated at New Britain General Hospital. A CT scan
performed at that facility revealed a small focal disc protrusion at L4-5 and
sclerotic change at...
To continue reading
Request your trial