5376 CRB-2-08-9 (2009). Nordstrom v. State of Connecticut Department of Correction.
Court | Connecticut |
Connecticut Workers Compensation
2009.
5376 CRB-2-08-9 (2009).
Nordstrom v. State of Connecticut Department of Correction
CASE NO. 5376 CRB-2-08-9COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS'
COMPENSATION COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2009FREDERICK J. NORDSTROM CLAIMANT-APPELLEE v. STATE OF
CONNECTICUT/DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION EMPLOYER SELF-INSURED RESPONDENT-APPELLANT
and GAB ROBINS OF NORTH AMERICA ADMINISTRATORAPPEARANCES: The claimant was represented by Scott
A. Carta, Esq., Law Offices of Leighton, Katz & Drapeau, 20 East Main
Street, P.O. Box 838, Rockville, CT 06066. The respondent was represented by
Taka Iwashita, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney
General, 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120. This Petition
for Review from the August 20, 2008 Finding and Award from the Commissioner
acting for the Second District was heard January 23, 2009 before a Compensation
Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro
and Commissioners Peter C. Mlynarczyk and Randy L. Cohen.OPINIONJOHN
A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN.The following appeal deals with whether the
trial commissioner properly applied § 5-142(a) C.G.S. in awarding benefits
to an injured correction officer. The respondent argues the situation herein
does not fall within the scope of the "special hazards" covered in the statute.
We conclude that based on the record presented that this was a judgment call
for the trial commissioner. We affirm the Finding and Award and dismiss this
appeal.The trial commissioner found the following facts. As the
respondent did not file a Motion to Correct, we conclude that for the purposes
of this appeal they are conclusively admitted. See Crochiere v. Board of
Education, 227 Conn. 333, 347 (1993) cited in Stevens v. Raymark Industries,
Inc., 5215 CRB-4-07-4 (March 26, 2008).
On September 28, 2006 the claimant was employed by the Department
of Correction as a counselor at the J.B. Gates correctional facility. The
claimant had an "open door" policy and met with inmates three quarters
(¾) of the day in his 10 X 12 office, sitting behind a three-foot desk.
He had a caseload of approximately 100 inmates and helped them with
transactional supervision, re-entry furlough, parole questions, etc. On that
date one inmate came to the claimant's office to ask him to call his parole
officer.
At this meeting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial