5352 CRB-6-08-6 (2009). Mohamed v. Domino's Pizza.
Court | Connecticut |
Connecticut Workers Compensation
2009.
5352 CRB-6-08-6 (2009).
Mohamed v. Domino's Pizza
CASE NO. 5352
CRB-6-08-6COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION APRIL 22, 2009OMER E. MOHAMED CLAIMANT-APPELLEE v.
DOMINO'S PIZZA EMPLOYER and AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO. AIG CLAIMS SERVICES,
INC. INSURER RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS APPEARANCES: The claimant was represented by John Pirina, Esq.,
Law Offices of Arnaldo J. Sierra, LLC, 215 Washington Street, Hartford, CT
06106 and Jon L. Schoenhorn, Esq., Schoenhorn & Favreau, Attorneys at Law,
108 Oak Street, Hartford, CT 06106-1514. The respondents were represented by
John Majewski, Esq., Bai, Pollock, Blueweiss & Mulcahey, P.C., One
Corporate Drive, 5th Floor, Shelton, CT 06484. This Petition for Review from
the May 20, 2008 Ruling on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss of the Commissioner
acting for the Sixth District was heard December 12, 2008 before a Compensation
Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro
and Commissioners Charles F. Senich and Jack R. Goldberg. OPINIONJOHN
A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN.This appeal is the result of interlocutory
orders responsive to the efforts of the respondent, AIG Claims Services, Inc.,
("AIG") to void a stipulation reached between the claimant and the respondent.
AIG obtained ex parte relief and the claimant later sought to
have a formal hearing convened to rule on AIG's request. AIG now argues that
the claimant's failure to immediately appeal the ex parte
decision to this board makes that decision final. The trial commissioner did
not agree and we concur. In the absence of a formal hearing, we cannot
entertain an appeal on the issues presented herein. The appeal is dismissed and
the matter remanded for a formal hearing on the merits. The dispute is the result of efforts to resolve issues emanating
from the claimant's June 25, 2004 motor vehicle accident, which the claimant
asserts is a compensable injury. The claimant pursued remedies before this
commission and also brought a personal injury action. The respondent asserted a
lien against recovery in the tort action. The parties acknowledge they held
discussions as to compromising the amount of the lien prior to the claimant
executing a stipulation for his compensable injury. On November 13, 2006 the
parties presented an executed stipulation to the Commission for approval, in
which AIG agreed to pay the claimant $20,000 to resolve this claim against his
employer. The stipulation included handwritten additions to the original
document in which AIG agreed to waive any lien rights and reimbursement rights
to the claimant's settlement of a third party action. The stipulation also
crossed out language referring to the statutory right of reimbursement against
tortfeasers or other insurers. Commissioner Ernie R. Walker approved this
stipulation on November 13, 2006.
On December 4, 2006 counsel for AIG filed a Motion to Void
Stipulation with Commissioner Walker. The motion asserted that pursuant to
§ 31-315 C.G.S. the approved stipulation should now be voided because "the
Stipulation did not represent a full and complete meeting of the minds
concerning a material fact." The motion further asserted that counsel at the
hearing did not have authority from AIG to "change the terms of the original
agreement" by adding the lien waiver language. Without notice to the claimant,
Commissioner Walker approved this motion on December 5, 2006.
Subsequent to that decision, the claimant sought a formal hearing
on the issue of whether or not to void the approved agreement. AIG then filed a
Motion to Dismiss dated November 28, 2007 asserting that since the claimant
failed to appeal Commissioner Walker's ex parte order within
the time limitation of § 31-301 (a) C.G.S. , the claimant was barred from
seeking any relief from that order...
To continue reading
Request your trial