5358 CRB-2-08-6 (2009). Levarge v. Electric Boat Corporation.

• Court: Connecticut

Connecticut Workers Compensation 2009. 5358 CRB-2-08-6 (2009). Levarge v. Electric Boat Corporation CASE NO. 5358 CRB-2-08-6COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2009PATRICIA LEVARGE, Dependent widow of RICHARD LEVARGE, Deceased CLAIMANT-APPELLEE v. ELECTRIC BOAT CORPORATION EMPLOYER SELF-INSURED RESPONDENT-APPELLANT and ACE USA/ST. PAUL TRAVELERS INSURER RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTSAPPEARANCES: The claimant was represented by Carolyn P. Kelly, Esq., Suisman, Shapiro, Wool, Brennan & Gray, 2 Union Plaza, Suite 200, P.O. Box 1591, New London, CT 06320. The respondent employer Electric Boat Corporation was represented by Peter D. Quay, Esq., Murphy and Beane, One Union Plaza, P.O. Box 590, New London, CT 06320. The respondents ACE USA/St. Paul Travelers were represented by Lucas D. Strunk, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton & Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Boulevard, Glastonbury, CT 06033. This Petition for Review from the June 12, 2008 Supplemental Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Eighth 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 Amado J. Vargas.OPINIONJOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN.The respondents, ACE USA and Travelers in their capacity as Workers' Compensation insurance carriers for the respondent employer, Electric Boat Corp. and the respondent-employer in its capacity as a self-insured, have appealed from the June 12, 2008 Supplemental Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Eighth District. In that Supplemental Finding and Award, following a remand order by this tribunal, the trial commissioner concluded that liability be apportioned amongst the respondents as follows; ACE USA - 79.9%; Travelers - 11.3% and the self-insured Electric Boat 8.8%. Further, the trial commissioner held that the respondents were precluded from litigating the issue of causation under the principle of collateral estoppel and the Supreme court's opinion in Lafayette v. General Dynamics Corp., 255 Conn. 762 (2001)At this juncture a review of the proceedings in this claim is warranted. The instant matter was previously considered by this tribunal in Levarge v. General Dynamics/Electric Boat Div., 4884 CRB-8-04-11 (November 30, 2005) [hereafter Levarge I]. Following our opinion in Levarge I, the respondents ACE USA and Travelers took an appeal. That appeal was ultimately considered by our Supreme Court in Levarge v. General Dynamics Corp., 282 Conn. 386 (2007). The factual circumstances giving rise to this claim were summarized in Levarge, id., and are as follows. The claimant is the...