5342 CRB-4-08-5 (2009). Gilbert v. City of Ansonia.
Court | Connecticut |
Connecticut Workers Compensation
2009.
5342 CRB-4-08-5 (2009).
Gilbert v. City of Ansonia
CASE NO. 5342
CRB-4-08-5COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION MAY 14, 2009KEVIN GILBERT CLAIMANT-APPELLEE v. CITY OF ANSONIA
EMPLOYER and CIRMA INSURER RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS APPEARANCES: The claimant was represented by
Michael E. Passero, Esq., Law Firm of John M. Creane, 92 Cherry Street, P.O.
Box 170, Milford, CT 06460. The respondents were represented by Scott Wilson
Williams, Esq., Maher & Williams, 268 Post Road, P.O. Box 550, Fairfield,
CT 06824-0550. Also in attendance on behalf of the City of Ansonia as
Corporation Counsel was Kevin Blake, Esq., Shepro & Blake, 2051 Main
Street, Stratford, CT 06615. This Petition for Review from the May 2, 2008
Finding and Order of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District was heard
on November 21, 2008 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the
Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners and Ernie R. Walker
and Amado J. Vargas. OPINIONJOHN A. MASTROPIETRO,
CHAIRMAN.The claimant has petitioned for review from the May 2, 2008
Finding and Order of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District. We find
no error, and affirm the decision of the trial commissioner.The following factual background is pertinent to our review of
this appeal. The claimant, a volunteer firefighter for the City of Ansonia,
sustained multiple injuries on June 16, 1995 after falling from a ladder while
fighting a fire. A Voluntary Agreement approved on September 8, 1997 described
the claimant's injuries as follows: "T12-L1 fracture, paraplegia, Rt. tibial
fx, hairline fx of pelvis, Rt. ulnar fx, right radial fx, left elbow fx,
collapsed Rt. lung." Claimant's Exhibit C (March 9, 2004). In an Order Pursuant
to C.G.S. 31-278 issued on June 22, 2004, the trial commissioner presiding over
the matter at that time determined the respondents had accepted compensability
for a T12-L1 fracture, paraplegia, a right tibia fracture, a pelvis fracture, a
right ulnar fracture, a right radial fracture, a left elbow fracture and a
collapsed right lung.(fn1) The trial commissioner also found that the claimant
had been receiving total incapacity benefits pursuant to § 31-307(c)
C.G.S. because of his paraplegia.(fn2) In addition, the trial commissioner
determined that the claimant, who was actively employed as an owner/operator of
a trucking company at the time of the decision, was permitted to continue
working inasmuch as the class of total disability benefits to which he was
entitled accorded him the status of a "permanent and total disabled person
pursuant to C.G.S. 31-307(c)." Findings, ¶ E. Finally, the trial
commissioner authorized the deposition of Matthew Raymond, M.D., in order to
"obtain an update on the status of the spinal cord injury." Findings, ¶ H.
Dr. Raymond, the claimant's treating physician, had previously diagnosed the
claimant with an ASIA-A spinal cord injury, which is defined by the American
Spinal Injury Association as, "a complete injury with no motor or sensory
function preserved in the sacral segments, S4S5." Respondents' Exhibit 1, p. 5
(March 9, 2004).
Following the deposition of Dr. Raymond, the respondents then
sought to have the claimant undergo a respondents' medical examination, to
which the claimant objected.(fn3) This dispute proceeded to a formal hearing,
and the Finding and Order of May 2, 2008 is the subject of the instant
appeal.
In this Finding and Order, the trial commissioner adopted and
incorporated the voluntary agreement of September 8, 1997 and the Finding and
Order of June 22, 2004, and concluded "[t]he law of this case establishes that
the claimant has been receiving total incapacity payments to date pursuant to
C.G.S. Section 31-307(c)." Findings, ¶ C. The trial commissioner further
determined, "[g]iven the history of this case, the voluntary agreement, the
prior Finding and Order dated June 22, 2004, and pursuant to C.G.S. 31-294f, I
hereby find the respondents' request for an examination of the claimant
unreasonable and therefore deny their request."(fn4) Findings, ¶ B. The
trial commissioner "[found] the respondents' attempt to relitigate this matter
several years after the date of injury to be unreasonable and against the
humanitarian purpose of the Workers' Compensation Act." Findings, ¶
E.
The respondents have appealed this decision, asserting they have
a "statutory right" to such an examination, Appellant's Brief, p. 6, and
"[t]here has never been an independent medical examination in this case
although such a request has been outstanding since 2002 and multiple attempts
have been made to schedule such an examination." Id. The respondents concede
that Dr. Raymond, in his report of December 13, 2002, states that the claimant
had sustained a T-11 ASIA A spinal cord injury. However, the respondents point
out that Dr. Raymond also indicated in the same report that the claimant "does
have a small zone of partial preservation, greater on the left than on the
right." Id., at 7. See also Respondents' Exhibit 1, p. 5 (March 9, 2004). The
respondents contend that Finding, ¶ H, in the decision of June 22, 2004,
wherein the trial commissioner authorized the respondents to take the
deposition of Dr. Raymond, "infers that the Commission believed that the
Respondents had the right to obtain an update regarding the status of the
claimant's leg paralysis and whether it comports to §31-307(c)."
Id.
The respondents also assert the trial commissioner's
determination that the law of the case established the claimant was receiving
benefits pursuant to § 31-307(c) C.G.S. was erroneous. "There was no order
or written agreement between the parties after the date of injury indicating
that the Claimant's total disability benefits were pursuant to §31-307(c).
The Voluntary Agreement only puts forth that the Claimant was receiving
temporary total disability benefits pursuant to §31-307." Id., at 8. The
respondents further dispute the inference drawn by the instant trial
commissioner relative to Finding, ¶ C of the June 22, 2004 Order wherein
that trial commissioner found "the claimant has been receiving total incapacity
benefits from the date of injury pursuant to C.G.S. 31-307(c) due to his
paraplegia." The respondents argue that because "[t]he only issue at that time
before the Commissioner was the discovery issue regarding whether the
Respondents would be allowed to schedule the treating physician's deposition,"
Appellants' Brief, p. 8,
any 'findings' set forth in the June 22, 2004 Order regarding the characterization of the temporary total disability benefits being paid must not influence the decision in this case as to whether an Independent Medical Examination is reasonable on the issue of the Claimant's current leg paralysis and should not bar the Respondents from investigating whether the Claimant has lost complete use of his legs or whether he has had a change in his condition.Id., at 9. The respondents contend that the trial commissioner's decision to deny the respondents' medical examination represents a violation of due process. However, the respondents also assert that even if "the Claimant has been adjudicated to be permanently and totally disabled pursuant to §31-307(c), there exists...
To continue reading
Request your trial