5416 CRB-8-09-1 (2010). Vannoy-Joseph v. State of Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services.

• Court: Connecticut

Connecticut Workers Compensation 2010. 5416 CRB-8-09-1 (2010). Vannoy-Joseph v. State of Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services CASE NO. 5416 CRB-8-09-1COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONMARCH 3, 2010ALICE VANNOY-JOSEPH CLAIMANT-APPELLEE v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES EMPLOYER SELF-INSURED RESPONDENT-APPELLANT and GAB ROBINS OF NORTH AMERICA ADMINISTRATOR APPEARANCES: The claimant was represented by Kevin W. Coombes, Esq., McCarthy, Schuman and Coombes, 61 Russ Street, Hartford, CT 06106. The respondent was represented by Philip Schulz, 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 December 22, 2008 Remanded Decision of the Commissioner acting for the Eighth District was heard September 25, 2009 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Randy L. Cohen and Christine L. Engel. OPINIONJOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The instant appeal arises from the trial commissioner's ruling on a matter that was the subject of a remand order set out in Vannoy-Joseph v. State/DMHAS, 5164 CRB-8-06-11 (January 29, 2008) [hereafter Vannoy-Joseph I].(fn1) In Vannoy-Joseph I,(fn2) this board considered the respondent's appeal of former Commissioner A. Thomas White's November 6, 2006 Finding and Award in which he authorized a three-level disc replacement surgery for the claimant. In this board's rather lengthy opinion we considered the respondent's objections and challenges to the trier's conclusion. Among the respondent's challenges in that appeal were that the three-level disc replacement surgery proposed was not approved by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] and thus it was error for the trial commissioner to authorize the procedure. In our consideration of Vannoy-Joseph I, we, in essence, held that the proposed use of a particular medical device and procedure that has not yet been approved by the FDA did not, per se, disqualify it as reasonable or necessary medical treatment under our Act. We advised that "in the case of a contested surgical procedure that is not well-established in the medical community, the evidence must include enough information for the trier to grasp the concepts and methods that support the procedure, and to anticipate that it will be effective for individuals comparable to the claimant." Id. We then ordered a remand "for the limited purpose of addressing the scientific validity of three-level disc replacement surgery for individuals comparable to the claimant. . . ." Id. Proceedings were then held before Commissioner Jack Goldberg acting in the capacity as trial commissioner. See id., note 17. A formal hearing was held June 25, 2008 in the course of which the trial commissioner accepted evidence consistent with our remand order and at the request of the respondent allowed the evidentiary record from the prior hearings to be included as part of the record before the trier. See June...