5299 CRB-3-07-11 (2009). McInnis v. Shelter Workz.
Court | Connecticut |
Connecticut Workers Compensation
2009.
5299 CRB-3-07-11 (2009).
McInnis v. Shelter Workz
CASE NO. 5299
CRB-3-07-11COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2009JAMES McINNIS CLAIMANT-APPELLEE v.
SHELTER WORKZ EMPLOYER and AIG CLAIMS SERVICES INSURER
RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTSAPPEARANCES:The claimant was represented by Richard Lynch,
Esq., Lynch, Traub, Keefe & Errante, 52 Trumbull Street, P.O. Box 1612, New
Haven, CT 06506. The respondents were represented by Colin Hoddinott, Esq., Law
Offices of Jack V. Genovese, II, 200 Glastonbury Boulevard, Suite 301,
Glastonbury, CT 06033. This Petition for Review(fn1) from the November 15, 2007
Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Third District was heard
April 24, 2009 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the
Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Peter C. Mlynarczyk
and Christine L. Engel.OPINIONJOHN A. MASTROPIETRO,
CHAIRMAN.The respondents in this matter have appealed from a Finding and
Award which determined that the claimant was totally disabled during a period
of time subsequent to his compensable injury. They argue that this decision was
not supported by sufficient probative evidence. We determine the trial
commissioner did have sufficient grounds to justify his decision. Moreover, to
the extent there was a delay in when expert testimony was presented on the
issues herein, such amounts to a "self-created hardship" on the part of the
respondent AIG, who failed to provide the claimant timely access to a
specialist.(fn2) As a result, we affirm the Finding and Award and dismiss this
appeal.The trial commissioner reached the following findings at the
conclusion of a formal hearing. On June 27, 2005 the claimant was employed by
the respondent Shelter Workz when he sustained a work-related lumbar spine
injury. Following that injury, the claimant treated at the Occupational Health
and Rehabilitation Clinic. The claimant returned to light duty work with a
restriction of no lifting over 25 pounds and limited bending. The claimant was
then provided light duty work and commenced physical therapy. This work
involved counting screws and placing them in a bag. The claimant was seated
while performing this work and the box of screws weighed about one pound. The
claimant alleges that he could not perform the light duty work because he had
back pain and could not sit for a long period of time. He communicated this to
his supervisor.
The claimant then visited Occupational Health and Rehabilitation
again on or after June 29, 2005 and was again returned to light duty work. This
work was even lighter than the prior work, but the claimant alleges he could
not perform the work. He advised Mr. Thomas Curtin, in the Human Resources
Department, that he could not perform the light duty job. Mr. Curtin advised
the claimant he would be terminated if he did not perform the light duty work.
A series of events, including a meeting, a phone call and letters transpired,
including a letter on June 28, 2005 informing the claimant he was to return to
the light duty job by June 30, 2005 and if he did not return, it was to be
considered that he had abandoned his job and he would be terminated. The
claimant did return to work on June 30, 2005, and then left after a brief
period of time because of...
To continue reading
Request your trial