5431 CRB-7-09-2 (2010). DiDonato v. Town of Greenwich Board of Education.
Court | Connecticut |
Connecticut Workers Compensation
2010.
5431 CRB-7-09-2 (2010).
DiDonato v. Town of Greenwich Board of Education
CASE NO. 5431
CRB-7-09-2COMPENSATION REVIEW
BOARD
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONMAY 18, 2010ANTHONY DiDONATO CLAIMANT-APPELLEE v. TOWN OF
GREENWICH BOARD OF EDUCATION EMPLOYER and CIRMA INSURER RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
APPEARANCES: The
claimant was represented by Christina Smith Hanna, Esq., The Berkowitz Law
Firm, LLC, 1010 Washington Boulevard, Ninth Floor, Stamford, CT 06901. The
respondents were represented by Heather K. Porto, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton and
Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Boulevard, Glastonbury, CT 06033. This Petition for
Review(fn1) from the February 9, 2009 Finding of the Commissioner acting for
the Seventh District was heard November 20, 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
respondents in this matter appeal from a Finding dated February 9, 2009
awarding the claimant temporary total disability benefits and approving
detoxification on the basis of the claimant having sustained psychiatric
injuries. The respondents argue that the claimant did not seek temporary total
disability benefits on that basis, and the issue of psychiatric injuries was
never properly noticed as an issue before this Commission. The claimant argues
that since the basis for this award was medical evidence submitted by the
respondents' witnesses, the award should stand. While we do understand the
respondents' concerns herein, we conclude that based on the record in this case
they were provided a sufficient forum to discuss the issue of detoxification;
and therefore, were not denied due process. On the other hand, we are not
satisfied that we understand the basis for the trial commissioner's conclusion
that the claimant is temporarily totally disabled due to psychiatric injuries.
We remand this issue to the trial commissioner for further proceedings.
The trial commissioner noted three issues were presented for
consideration: a) whether the claimant should have additional surgery
authorized; b) whether the claimant had reached maximum medical improvement and
whether a Form 36 should be approved, and c) whether, if the Form 36 was
denied, the claimant should be deemed totally or temporarily partially
disabled? She reached the following findings of facts. The claimant was injured
September 24, 2003 while lifting a garbage can. He presented immediately
thereafter at Greenwich Hospital and underwent a left L3-4 laminectomy and
facetectomy. The claimant developed delayed progressive mechanical low back
pain three months after the surgery. On April 22, 2004 the claimant felt a pop
in his back when picking up a piece of mail and complained of severe pain to
the back and right leg. On July 2, 2004 he underwent an L2-3 and L3-4
posterolateral arthodesis and instrumentation with pedal screws and rods. The
claimant's treating physician, Katrina S. Firlick, M.D., referred the claimant
to Dr. David Y. Xiong for pain management issues. On January 10, 2005 Dr. Xiong
administered a right L5-S1 interlaminar epidural steroid injection to the
claimant.
The respondent had the claimant examined by Dr. Gerard A. Sava on
March 28, 2005. Dr. Sava found the claimant displayed symptom amplification and
that stretch reflexes were symmetrical and the muscle groups showed no
objective evidence of weakness or atrophy; nor were there signs or symptoms
suggestive of residual nerve root involvement. Dr. Sava opined there was no
clinical or radiologic basis for the claimant's proclaimed disability and no
evidence of need for further investigative studies, surgery or pain management.
He opined further pain management would risk a return to drug abuse for the
claimant.
Dr. Xiong continued pain management during 2005 and 2006. This
regimen included the installation of a spinal cord stimulator, which Dr. Xiong
removed on August 8, 2006 due to fear of infection. On September 14, 2006 Dr.
Jarob Mushaweh performed an examination of the claimant at the direction of the
commissioner. The claimant was asked to bring all imaging studies to the
examination, but Dr. Mushaweh stated this did not occur. Dr. Mushaweh opined
that the prior surgeries had healed and that no further surgeries were
indicated. He diagnosed the claimant with "failed back syndrome" and noted the
failure of pain management. Dr. Mushaweh, also expressed concern with the
claimant's narcotic use and suggested a morphine or Dilaudid pump was not
advisable. Dr. Mushaweh recommended the claimant undergo a functional capacity
examination.
On December 21, 2006 Rob D. Wright of Wright2Work conducted a
functional capacity examination of the claimant...
To continue reading
Request your trial