Gfeller v. Big Y Foods, 040820 CTWC, 6322 CRB-2-19-5

Case DateApril 08, 2020
CourtConnecticut
PENNY GFELLER CLAIMANT-APPELLEE
v.
BIG Y FOODS SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT-APPELLANT
No. 6322 CRB-2-19-5
Connecticut Workers Compensation
Compensation Review Board Workers Compensation Commission
April 8, 2020
         This Petition for Review from the April 22, 2019 Finding and Award of Peter C. Mlynarczyk, Commissioner acting for the Second District, was heard on October 25, 2019 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of Commission Chairman Stephen M. Morelli and Commissioners Daniel E. Dilzer and David W. Schoolcraft.           The claimant was represented by Robert B. Keville, Esq., Suisman, Shapiro, Wool, Brennan, Gray & Greenberg, P.C.           The respondent was represented by Nicholas W. Francis, Esq., Law Office of Jonathan Zajac, L.L.C.          OPINION           STEPHEN M. MORELLI, CHAIRMAN.          The respondent has petitioned for review from the April 22, 2019 Finding and Award of Peter C. Mlynarczyk, Commissioner acting for the Second District (commissioner). We find no error and accordingly affirm the decision of the commissioner.          The commissioner identified as the issue for analysis whether the claimant was entitled to temporary partial disability benefits pursuant to General Statutes § 31-308 (a) despite the claimant’s employment having been previously terminated for cause.[1] A formal hearing was held on February 13, 2019, before Commissioner Thomas J. Mullins in the Second District Office of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (commission). The parties thereafter agreed to have the matter transferred to Commissioner Mlynarczyk for a decision based on the evidentiary record already before the commission. Another hearing was held on April 10, 2019, at which time the parties submitted their proposed findings and the record was closed.          The commissioner made the following factual findings which are pertinent to our review of this matter. The respondent conceded that on October 13, 2017, the claimant sustained compensable injuries to her right shoulder and left knee while at work. The claimant sought treatment for her injuries at Concentra within a few days of the October 13, 2017 incident, which treatment was paid for by the respondent. On October 23, 2017, the Concentra treating physician released the claimant back to work with restrictions on lifting, pushing and pulling. The respondent accommodated the restrictions and provided the claimant with her usual number of hours at full wages. The claimant’s employment was terminated for cause on March 2, 2018, due to a violation of company policy unrelated to her work injury. The respondent did not pay any indemnity benefits from March 3, 2018, through April 1, 2018, and the claimant is not claiming indemnity benefits for this period.          On April 2, 2018, the claimant underwent right shoulder surgery with Ammar Anbari, M.D., at which time the respondent commenced payment of temporary total disability benefits. On May 31, 2018, Anbari released the claimant to light duty with restrictions. On June 4, 2018, the commission received a notice to discontinue benefits (“form 36”) as of May 31, 2018. The respondent contended the claimant was not eligible for temporary partial disability benefits because the employer would have accommodated the claimant’s restrictions had she not been terminated for cause. The form 36 was approved on June 4, 2018, and the claimant subsequently sought to have the form 36 re-opened and denied.          John Connolly, the director of the respondent’s store location in Mystic, Connecticut, testified at the formal hearing. He stated that but for the claimant’s termination for cause, the respondent would have accommodated her post-operative employment restrictions without any loss of wages. Connolly also testified that because the claimant had been terminated for cause, she would never be eligible for future employment with Big Y.          The claimant submitted work searches for the period of June 3, 2018, through July 21, 2018. The respondent challenged the credibility of the work searches because they were performed on-line and the claimant did not attach receipts to the printouts which would have allowed the respondent to verify that the searches were actually performed.          The claimant secured employment at Holmgren Subaru on August 12, 2018, and worked there through September 8, 2018. On...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT