5326 CRB-5-08-3 (2009). Smith v. City of Waterbury.
Court | Connecticut |
Connecticut Workers Compensation
2009.
5326 CRB-5-08-3 (2009).
Smith v. City of Waterbury
CASE NO. 5326
CRB-5-08-3COMPENSATION REVIEW
BOARD
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONFEBRUARY 4, 2009 WALTER SMITH CLAIMANT-APPELLANT v.
CITY OF WATERBURY EMPLOYER SELF-INSURED and BERKLEY ADMINISTRATORS
RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES APPEARANCES: The claimant was represented by Jill F. Morrissey,
Esq., and David J. Morrissey, Esq., Morrissey, Morrissey & Mooney, LLC, 203
Church Street, P.O. Box 31, Naugatuck, CT 06771. The respondents were
represented by Matthew Necci, Esq., and Frank May, Esq., Montstream & May,
LLP, 655 Winding Brook Drive, P.O. Box 1087, Glastonbury, CT 06033-6087. This
Petition for Review from the February 22, 2008 Finding and Dismissal of the
Commissioner acting for the Fifth District was heard September 26, 2008 before
a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A.
Mastropietro and Commissioners Ernie R. Walker and Charles F. Senich. OPINIONJOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN.The claimant in this matter,
a retired Waterbury police officer, appeals from the decision of the trial
commissioner denying him temporary total disability benefits. We find that
based on the record before the trial commissioner, the decision on whether to
award such benefits was committed to the commissioner's discretion.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial commissioner and dismiss this appeal. The trial commissioner found the following facts which are not
disputed by the parties. The claimant retired from the Waterbury Police
Department in 1994 at the age of 62. At that point he was diagnosed with heart
disease, which has been accepted as a § 7-433c C.G.S. claim by the
respondents. The claimant has not worked since his retirement, and has been
collecting approximately $3,200 per month in pension and social security
benefits. The claimant now asserts that as of March 12, 2004 he was totally
disabled and seeks benefits under § 31-307 C.G.S.
The claimant presented an opinion from his treating physician,
Dr. Joseph Anthony, a cardiologist, that he was unable to work in any capacity.
He also presented an opinion from his other treating physician, Dr. John
Salerno, a doctor of internal medicine, that he was unable to work because of
his cardiac condition.
The trial commissioner reviewed the medical records of the
treating physicians. The commissioner noted that between October 4, 1989 and
December 30, 2005, claimant had visited Dr. Salerno on 45 occasions. Only three
of Dr. Salerno's notes indicate treatment for a heart related problem-June 29
and July 18, 1990, and December 30, 2005. The commissioner also reviewed the
results of cardiac tests performed on the claimant. On March 11, 2004, the
claimant...
To continue reading
Request your trial