5393 CRB-4-08-11 (2009). Valiante v. Burns Construction Company.

• Court: Connecticut

Connecticut Workers Compensation 2009. 5393 CRB-4-08-11 (2009). Valiante v. Burns Construction Company CASE NO.5393 CRB-4-08-11COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 2009ROBERT M. VALIANTE CLAIMANT-APPELLEE v. BURNS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY EMPLOYER and ACE USA INSURER RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTSAPPEARANCES: The claimant was represented by Daniel Skuret, Esq., Law Offices of Daniel D. Skuret, 215 Division Street, P.O. Box 158, Ansonia, CT 06401-0158. The respondents were represented by Timothy Ward, Esq., McGann, Bartlett & Brown, 111 Founders Plaza, Suite 1201, East Hartford, CT 06108. This Petition for Review from the October 27, 2008 Order of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District was heard April 24, 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. The respondents in this matter have appealed from an Order issued by the trial commissioner directing that a claims adjuster be subject to a deposition. The respondents argue that this in some fashion violates their due process rights. We find no merit in the respondents' arguments, and affirm the order of the trial commissioner.The genesis of this dispute occurred when counsel for the claimant alleged that the respondents had engaged in undue delay and unreasonable contest. In preparation for a hearing on this issue counsel for the claimant noticed a deposition of a claims adjuster for ACE USA insurance, Ann McCants. Counsel for the respondent filed for a protective order and a Motion to Quash the subpoena. Following those developments the trial commissioner issued a notice, dated October 2, 2007 for the parties to attend an Emergency Formal hearing on October 16, 2007. The hearing notice referenced § 31-288(a) C.G.S. § 31-288(b) C.G.S. and § 31-300 C.G.S. among other statutes. The hearing did not specifically reference the claimant's discovery requests. That issue was addressed at the commencement of the October 16, 2007 formal hearing. The trial commissioner made the following statement on the record.

I just want to make a statement for the record preliminary as far as housekeeping. The notice, as I stated, was issued on October 2, 2007 for today's formal; and as the parties have a copy of that notice, there's various issues listed for today's formal. We had brief discussion off the record. Essentially what this case was set down for today's formal by myself was in regard to the claimant's request to take the deposition of the respondent adjuster in this case. That exactly is not spelled out in the notice for today's formal.

So the purpose on going forward today on the record is to spell out to the parties that I'm going to reconvene this formal for approximately two weeks and the next time we reconvene the formal, it's going to be for the sole issue of the claimant's request to take the respondent adjuster deposition. And then at a later date we will address the other listed issues.

October 16, 2007 Transcript, pp. 2-3. The next formal hearing was held on January 28, 2008. While the hearing notice for that hearing did not specifically reference the issue of holding a deposition; once again the trial commissioner went on the record to confirm the parties were prepared to go forward on that issue.

Also I think it needs to be stated that the underlying issues in this case that give rise to the claimant's request to take the

...