5669 CRB-7-11-7 (2012). FRANKLIN T. MILLER, III CLAIMANT-APPELLANT v. THYSSEN KRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION.
Court | Connecticut |
Connecticut Workers Compensation
2012.
5669 CRB-7-11-7 (2012).
FRANKLIN T. MILLER, III CLAIMANT-APPELLANT v. THYSSEN KRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION
CASE NO. 5669
CRB-7-11-7COMPENSATION REVIEW
BOARD
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONAUGUST 29, 2012FRANKLIN T. MILLER, III CLAIMANT-APPELLANT v.
THYSSEN KRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION EMPLOYER and CONNECTICUT GENERAL FIRE and
CASUALTY COMPANY/GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES INSURER RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES
APPEARANCES: The
claimant was represented by Ryan M. Henry, Esq., Guendelsberger Law Office,
LLP, 28 Park Lane Road, New Milford, CT 06776. The respondents were represented
by Michael M. Buonopane, Esq., McGann, Bartlett and Brown, LLC, 111 Founders
Plaza, Suite 1201, East Hartford, CT 06108. This Petition for Review(fn1) from
the July 7, 2011 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the
Seventh District was heard February 17, 2012 before a Compensation Review Board
panel consisting of Commissioners Daniel E. Dilzer, Ernie R. Walker and Clifton
E. Thompson.(fn2) OPINIONDANIEL E. DILZER, COMMISSIONER. The claimant
in this matter appeals from the July 7, 2011 Finding and Dismissal of the
commissioner acting on behalf of the Seventh District. The appellant presents a
number of issues for our review. The ultimate issue presented for our review is
whether the trial commissioner erred in failing to award benefits to the
claimant relating to an injury sustained on September 19, 2007.
The pertinent facts in this matter are as follows. The claimant
alleges that on September 19, 2007, he injured his back when a step ladder upon
which he was standing collapsed. There is no argument that the event occurred
while the claimant was in the employ of the respondent. The issue is whether
the respondent is legally liable for workers' compensation benefits.
On its face, the issue at hand, whether the respondent is liable
for benefits resulting from the September 19, 2007 work incident, is a rather
routine determination requested of a commissioner. The instant matter, however,
is complicated by the claimant's prior medical history relating to his
back.
The claimant alleges that on or about May 20, 2004, while at work
he suffered a lifting injury to his back. The respondent filed a Form 43,
wherein they put the claimant on notice that they were contesting the
claimant's claim. No timely written notice of claim was filed by the claimant
nor were any of the constructive notice provisions of the workers' compensation
act satisfied. Therefore, the claim for benefits relating to the May 20, 2004
injury was untimely and barred by the Act's statute of non claim. See §
31-294c(a). On or about June 12, 2006, while in the course of his employment,
the claimant suffered a second injury to his back. Although this claim was
timely filed it was not pursued.
In proceedings before the trial commissioner the respondent
argued that the issue turned on whether the September 19, 2007 incident
resulted in an injury that was materially and substantially an aggravation of a
preexisting condition or whether it was a continuation of the 2004 injury which
was barred by the workers' compensation statute of non claim.
There was testimony before the trial commissioner reflecting that
the claimant's May 2004 injury occurred when the claimant was lifting tools.
Thereafter, the claimant endured persistent back and leg pain. Following the
2004 lifting injury the claimant sought treatment with his primary care
physician, Dr. Joseph Franceschina and a pain specialist, Dr. David Kloth. The
claimant also treated with Dr. Dennis Ogiela, an orthopedic surgeon. The
claimant was diagnosed as suffering from "lumbar degenerative disc disease and
left sciatica." Findings, ¶ 10.
As a result of the 2004 lifting injury the claimant lost some
time from work, however, the claimant testified that the 2004 incident did not
interfere with his ability to perform his job. Following the May 2004 incident
Dr. Ogiela determined that the claimant had a modified work capacity and
recommended that he avoid repetitive bending or lifting. Dr. Ogiela also
prescribed medications and physical therapy. On May 26, 2004, the claimant
again saw Dr. Ogiela and complained of "continued unrelenting pain radiating to
his left leg." Findings, ¶ 11. The claimant stated that the pain
interfered with his ability to function at home and work. Dr. Ogiela discussed
surgery with the claimant. The claimant indicated he did not want to pursue
surgery and elected to undergo a course of pain management. Dr. Ogiela advised
the claimant to continue his medication, physical therapy and to have an
MRI.
On June 18, 2004, the claimant began pain management treatment
with Dr. Kloth. Dr. Kloth administered an epidural steroid injection. In
Findings, ¶ 12, the trial commissioner referenced Dr. Kloth's diagnosis
and quoted "Pre-op: Lumbar radiculopathy HNP (herniated nucleus pulposus), and
degenerative disc disease. Post-op: Same." Thereafter, the claimant underwent a
series of epidural steroid injections from Dr. Kloth as well as a variety of
other treatment modalities.(fn3)
In Findings, ¶ 26, the trial commissioner found:
On August 1, 2007, the claimant returns to Dr. Kloth for evaluation. His diagnosis sets forth "lumbar facet syndrome; lumbar spondylosis, radiculopathy, HNP (herniated nucleus pulposus) and degenerative disc disease. Kloth states that the claimant underwent a lumber facet diagnostic mapping procedure on July 18, 2007. He further recommends a lumbar radiofrequency facet denervation for the facetogenic component of the claimant's symptoms.The above referenced opinion dated August 1, 2007, from Dr. Kloth preceded the September 19, 2007 stepladder incident by less than two months. On October 17, 2007, the claimant underwent an MRI. Dr. Joel Canter interpreted the MRI as revealing a "moderate-sized central and left-sided disc herniation at L4-L5. No other significant abnormality noted." Findings, ¶ 29. On October 24, 2007, the claimant was again seen by Dr. Kloth. The claimant again complained of pain in his lower back radiating to his buttocks and down his left leg. Dr. Kloth noted the claimant's complaints of ever increasing pain but also noted that the claimant was better than his exacerbation in September. Dr. Kloth also disagreed with Dr. Canter's report as to what the October 17, 2007 MRI revealed. Dr. Kloth was of the opinion that the MRI showed a "significant progression of his disease" and Dr. Canter's report inadequately described the...
To continue reading
Request your trial