5383 CRB-8-08-10 (2009). Neville v. Baran Institute of Technology et al.
Court | Connecticut |
Connecticut Workers Compensation
2009.
5383 CRB-8-08-10 (2009).
Neville v. Baran Institute of Technology et al
CASE
NO. 5383 CRB-8-08-10COMPENSATION REVIEW
BOARD
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 24, 2009ANTHONY NEVILLE
CLAIMANT-APPELLEE v. BARAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY EMPLOYER and ZURICH NORTH
AMERICA INSURER RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS and CONNECTICUT STEEL CORPORATION
EMPLOYER and ARROWPOINT CAPITAL CORPORATION INSURER
RESPONDENTS-APPELLEESAPPEARANCES: The claimant was represented by Robert J.
Sokolowski, Esq., Law Offices of Robert J. Sokolowski, 1 Barristers' Court,
Meriden, CT 06451. The respondents Baran Institute of Technology and Zurich
American Insurance Co. were represented by Michael A. Burton, Esq., Sharp,
Shields & Smith, 500 Enterprise Drive, Suite 4B, Rocky Hill, CT 06067. The
respondents Connecticut Steel Corporation and Arrowpoint Capital Corporation
were represented by Maribeth McGloin, Esq., Maher & Williams, P.O. Box 550,
Fairfield, CT 06824. This Petition for Review from the September 15, 2008
Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Eighth District was heard
March 27, 2009 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the
Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Peter C. Mlynarczyk
and Randy L. Cohen.OPINION JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN.
This appeal concerns the applicability of Hatt v. Burlington Coat Factory, 263
Conn. 279 (2003) to a scenario where the claimant suffered two separate
compensable injuries. The trial commissioner in this matter determined that
since a second injury occurred the insurance carrier on the risk for that
injury was responsible for the claimant's cervical spine injuries subsequent to
that date. The respondent Zurich North America ("Zurich") has appealed, arguing
the evidence in the record does not support the Finding and Award.We have reviewed the record in this matter as well as the text of
the applicable statute, § 31-349(a) C.G.S. Upon review, we have determined
the trial commissioner did not have sufficient probative evidence to justify
the result reached in the Finding and Award, since apportionment may only be
ordered when a claimant has sustained a disability "which is materially and
substantially greater than the disability that would have resulted from the
second injury alone." We determine there is no evidence on the record which
would sustain such an award for the claimant's cervical condition, and reverse
the trial commissioner on that issue.
We will summarize what was a lengthy Finding and Award, which
details three separate work-related injuries and no fewer than five surgical
procedures. The claimant suffered his first cervical spine injury on September
25, 1994 while employed by Connecticut Steel. In December of 1994 he underwent
his first cervical fusion. Following that surgery the claimant was awarded a
20% permanent partial disability award and returned to work with
restrictions.
The claimant suffered another injury on January 14, 1999 while
working at Connecticut Steel. He had a number of surgeries subsequent to that
event. The claimant testified to a September 11, 2002 cervical spine surgery, a
November 24, 2003 cervical spine surgery and a June 8, 2005 cervical spine
surgery. The claimant's treating physician, Joseph Aferzon. M.D. also performed
a posterior fusion surgery at C-4 through C-6 on November 24, 2004. On May 12,
2005 Commissioner White ordered Connecticut Steel's carrier, now known as
Arrowpoint Capital, ("Arrowpoint") to pay the claimant's unpaid medical bills,
temporary total disability and attorney's fees regarding the claimant's
cervical spine. The claimant has testified that he did not receive a permanent
partial disability rating following any of these aforementioned surgeries.
The 2005 order did not address the claimant's lumbar spine. MRIs
conducted in September 1999 and January 2000 showed a broad-based disc bulge
with spinal stenosis. An April 2, 2003 Respondents' Medical Examination
included an MRI that did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial