JOANN C. SMITH CLAIMANT-APPELLANT
v.
SEDGEWICK CLAIMS MANGEMENT SERVICES EMPLOYER
and
SEDGEWICK CMS, INCORPORATED INSURER RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES
No. 6351 CRB-1-19-10
Connecticut Workers Compensation
Compensation Review Board Workers Compensation Commission
November 5, 2020
This
Petition for Review from the September 25, 2019 Finding and
Dismissal by Daniel E. Dilzer, the Commissioner acting for
the First District, was heard July 24, 2020 before a
Compensation Review Board panel consisting of Commission
Chairman Stephen M. Morelli and Commissioners Randy L. Cohen
and Maureen E. Driscoll.[1]
The
claimant appeared at oral argument before the board as a
self-represented party. At the formal hearing, the claimant
was represented by Richard Lynch, Esq., Lynch, Traub, Keefe
& Errante
The
respondents were represented by Lynn M. Raccio, Esq.
OPINION
STEPHEN M. MORELLI, CHAIRMAN.
The
claimant has appealed from the September 25, 2019 Finding and
Dismissal (finding) reached by Commissioner Daniel E. Dilzer
(commissioner). The claimant argues the finding was
inconsistent with the evidence presented at the formal
hearing and she established that she sustained a compensable
injury in the course of her employment. The respondents argue
the claimant failed to meet her burden of proof that her
injuries were compensable and that substantial evidence on
the record supports the finding. Upon reviewing the finding
and the arguments presented by the litigants, we are unable
to reach a determination. Since the rationale for the
commissioner’s conclusion is opaque, we must remand
this matter for an explanation as to how he arrived at his
conclusions. Otherwise, we do not believe we can perform
effective appellate review. Therefore, consistent with our
precedent in Bazelais v. Honey Hill Care Center,
5011 CRB-7-05-10 (October 25, 2006), appeal
withdrawn, A.C. 30307 (July 17, 2009), we remand this
matter back to the commissioner for an articulation as to why
he concluded the claimant’s injuries were not sustained
in the course of her employment.
We will
summarize the facts presented to the commissioner. The
claimant has worked as a claims adjuster for the respondent
since 2015 and maintains a home office. She testified that
she only goes into the respondent’s office twice a
month. The claimant’s workday generally consisted of
signing into the company computer network using her company
password, typically at 8:30 a.m. on workdays, and she would
process payments, answer e-mails and interact with coworkers
through the company computer network from her home until she
logged off the computer usually at 5:15 p.m. The
claimant’s office was on the second floor of her home
and she testified that when she went downstairs to obtain a
snack or to eat lunch she would not log...
