5417 CRB-7-09-1 (2009). Chimblo v. Connecticut Light & Power.

• Court: Connecticut

Connecticut Workers Compensation 2009. 5417 CRB-7-09-1 (2009). Chimblo v. Connecticut Light & Power CASE NO. 5417 CRB-7-09-1COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 30, 2009FRANK M. CHIMBLO CLAIMANT-APPELLEE v. CONNECTICUT LIGHT and POWER EMPLOYER SELF-INSURED RESPONDENT-APPELLANT and NORTHEAST UTILITIES CLAIMS SERVICE ADMINISTRATORAPPEARANCES: The claimant was represented by James T. Baldwin, Esq., Coles, Baldwin and Kaiser, LLC, 1261 Post Road, P.O. Box 577, Fairfield, CT 06824. The respondent was represented by Michael J. Buonopane, Esq., McGann, Bartlett and Brown, LLC, 111 Founders Plaza, Suite 1201, East Hartford, CT 06108. This Petition for Review from the January 15, 2009 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Seventh District was heard June 19, 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 respondent filed an appeal from the January 15, 2009 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Seventh District. In that Finding and Award the trial commissioner ordered the respondent to; authorize ongoing medical treatment, pay all reasonable and necessary prescriptions and appliances related to a back injury stemming from work related injuries occurring October 15, 1976 and May 9, 1979.The pertinent facts in this matter are as follows. The claimant alleged he sustained an injury to his low back on October 15, 1976 and a May 9, 1979. The commissioner found that a voluntary agreement was approved and the voluntary agreement acknowledged the claimant's May 9, 1979 back injury and a 40% permanent partial disability of the low back. Following the May 9, 1979 injury the claimant underwent a discetomy at the L4-L5 level. Following the surgery, the claimant was out of work for approximately six months. The claimant returned to work for the respondent for a period of approximately one year. After leaving the respondent's employ, the claimant went to school and obtained his electrical contractor's license. The claimant ran his own electrical contracting business for a period of five years. The claimant's back surgery was declared a success. However, as time went on, the claimant began to experience increased symptomatology. Between the mid-1980s and 1998 the claimant was seen by a number of physicians. Conflicting opinions were offered by the physicians as to whether surgery would be helpful in relieving the worsening symptoms. In February 1995, claimant's treating physician, Dr. Thomas D. Rodda suggested that the claimant undergo a spinal fusion at the L4-5 and L-5 sacrum levels and if other changes were detected, a more extensive fusion. The respondent's examiner, Dr. Michael E. Karnasiewicz in his September 29, 1995 report stated that the surgical fusion proposed by Dr. Rodda was "a medically acceptable way of treating the claimant's problems" but did not guarantee relief...