5365 CRB-8-08-8 (2009). Churchville v. Bruce R. Daly Mechanical Contractor.
Court | Connecticut |
Connecticut Workers Compensation
2009.
5365 CRB-8-08-8 (2009).
Churchville v. Bruce R. Daly Mechanical Contractor
CASE NO. 5365 CRB-8-08-8COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS'
COMPENSATION COMMISSIONAUGUST 4, 2009FRANCIS J. CHURCHVILLE, JR. CLAIMANT-APPELLANT CROSS-APPELLEE v.
BRUCE R. DALY MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR EMPLOYER and RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT
INSURER RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES CROSS-APPELLANTSAPPEARANCES: The claimant was represented by
Stephen F. McEleney, Esq., McEleney & McGrail, 20 Church Street, Suite
1730, Hartford, CT 06103. The respondents were represented by Maribeth McGloin,
Esq., Maher & Williams, P.O. Box 550, Fairfield, CT 06824. This Petition
for Review from the July 15, 2008 Finding and Award/Dismissal of the
Commissioner acting for the First District was heard February 27, 2009 before a
Compensation Review Board panel consisting of Commissioners Randy L. Cohen,
Nancy E. Salerno, and David W. Schoolcraft. OPINION RANDY L. COHEN,
COMMISSIONER. The claimant and the respondents have petitioned for
review from the July 15, 2008 Finding and Award/Dismissal of the Commissioner
acting for the First District. We affirm the decision of the trial commissioner
in part and remand in part for additional proceedings consistent with this
opinion. The following factual determinations are pertinent to our review.
The trial commissioner found that the claimant, while in the employ of Bruce R.
Daly Mechanical Contractor, sustained a compensable injury to his right
shoulder on December 2, 1997 and a compensable injury to his lumbar spine on
March 27, 2000. The record indicates that the claimant also filed a claim for a
repetitive trauma injury to his left shoulder on March 27, 2000; in January
2003, Myron Shafer, M.D., performed a Commissioner's Examination on the
claimant's left shoulder and opined that the claimant's injury probably did
result from repetitive use rather than the claimant's use of a cane or crutch.
However, Dr. Shafer did not link the claimant's problems in his left shoulder
to the claimant's employment with the respondent employer. Claimant's Exhibit
X.
On January 7, 2004, the claimant's treating physician, Charles B.
Kime, M.D., issued a report in which he opined that the claimant suffered from
"failed lumbar spine surgery syndrome." Claimant's Exhibit E. Dr. Kime also
indicated that the claimant was totally disabled, had reached maximum medical
improvement, and had sustained a thirtytwo percent (32%) permanent partial
disability of his lumbar spine. On January 7, 2005, Dr. Kime reviewed the
results of the claimant's Functional Capacity Evaluation and remarked that the
claimant "may be capable of some sedentary activity." Respondents' Exhibit 1.
However, Dr. Kime also indicated that the claimant "does not appear to be
capable of any significant vocational activity." Id.
On May 27, 2004, Christopher J. Lena, M.D., evaluated the
claimant's left shoulder and issued a report in which the doctor opined that
the claimant had reached maximum medical improvement and sustained a fifteen
percent (15%) permanent partial disability. Claimant's Exhibit G. On June 12,
2006, Michael Aron, M.D., evaluated the claimant's right shoulder and assigned
a ten percent (10%) permanent partial disability rating. Claimant's Exhibit
F.
On May 4, 2007, the respondents filed a Form 36 asserting the
claimant had reached maximum medical improvement and attaching in support of
their contention a report by Aris D. Yannopoulos dated April 20, 2007 which
assigned to the claimant a permanency rating of twenty percent (20%) of the
lumbar spine and concluded the claimant had a work capacity such that he "could
perform work which requires intermittent sitting and standing."(fn1) Claimant's
Exhibit A. On May 7, 2007, the claimant filed correspondence with the Workers'
Compensation Commission objecting to the Form 36. On May 29, 2007, at an
informal hearing held to address the claimant's timely objection to the Form
36, the presiding trial commissioner ordered a commissioner's examination with
Jarob Mushaweh, M.D., "in an effort to determine whether the Claimant had a
work capacity, the extent of any permanent partial disability, and whether or
not the left shoulder was compensable." Findings, ¶ 12. In his report
dated October 26, 2007, Dr. Mushaweh stated that he concurred with Dr. Kime's
diagnosis that the claimant suffered from failed back syndrome. Claimant's
Exhibit B. Dr. Mushaweh also indicated that the claimant did not require
additional treatment to his lumbar spine, and opined that while the claimant
may have sustained a repetitive trauma injury to his left shoulder, the injury
was not related to the claimant's lumbar spine injury. Dr. Mushaweh did not
comment as to whether in his opinion the claimant had a work capacity.
On November 28, 2007, the claimant provided to the respondents a
settlement proposal which analyzed the value of the case under two scenarios.
The first scenario was based on the claimant's continuing entitlement to total
disability benefits, while the second was based on the claimant's entitlement
to permanent partial disability benefits and § 31308a C.G.S. benefits.
Claimant's Exhibit K. At an informal hearing held on January 23, 2008, the
presiding trial commissioner denied the Form 36 which had been filed on May 4,
2007.(fn2) Claimant's Exhibit D. On February 28, 2008, the claimant died of
causes unrelated to his work injuries, and on March 4, 2008, claimant's counsel
indicated by letter that he no longer had any objection to the Form 36 being
granted effective January 23, 2008. Claimant's Exhibit J. On the same date,
respondents' counsel objected to the claimant's attempt to reopen the Form 36.
Respondents' Exhibit 4. On March 27, 2008, a formal hearing was held which
served as a trial de novo on the issue of the Form 36 and also
addressed the issue of whether any permanent partial disability benefits should
be paid to the claimant's estate.
The trial commissioner concluded that the claimant had sustained
a ten percent (10%) permanent partial disability to his right shoulder and a
thirty-two percent (32%) permanent partial disability to his lumbar spine.
However, the trial commissioner found the record did not contain sufficient
evidence to support finding that the claimant had also sustained a compensable
left shoulder injury, and dismissed that claim. The trial commissioner
characterized claimant's counsel's settlement demand of November 28, 2007 as an
"affirmative request" for permanent partial disability benefits and concluded,
"[g]iven that the Claimant made an affirmative demand for payment of permanent
partial disability benefits after having reached maximum medical improvement,
such benefits were vested on the Claimant's date of death." Findings,
¶¶ F, J. The trier, having determined that as of May 4, 2007, the
claimant had a sedentary work capacity and had attained maximum medical
improvement relative to his injuries to the lumbar spine and right shoulder,
retroactively approved the Form 36 and ordered that all payments to the
claimant made by the respondents subsequent to May 4, 2007 be credited against
the award of permanent partial disability benefits.
The claimant and the respondents filed Motions to Correct, both
of which were denied in their entirety, and this appeal/cross-appeal followed.
The respondents contend the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial