11/9/2009AC30147 - Diaz v. Pineda ("On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the board improperly (1) affirmed the commissioner’s findings that he was not entitled to temporary total disability benefits or additional medical treatment and (2) denied his motion to submit additional evidence.") 11/2/2009
Dinuzzo v. Dan Perkins Chevrolet Geo, Inc. - SC17869 (Workers' compensation; "The sole issue raised by this certified appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly reversed the decision of the compensation review board (board) upholding the decision of the workers’ compensation commissioner for the third district (commissioner), who awarded the plaintiff, Evana DiNuzzo, survivor’s benefits under General Statutes § 31-306 (a). The Appellate Court concluded that there were insufficient subordinate facts in the record to support the commissioner’s finding that the death of the plaintiff’s husband, James DiNuzzo (decedent), was causally related to a compensable injury and, therefore, that the plaintiff was not entitled to survivor’s benefits.") 8/7/2009
AC29442 - Chappell v. Pfizer, Inc., Et Al. (The sole issue on appeal is whether the workers’ compensation review board...properly affirmed the determination of the workers’ compensation commissioner for the second district ... that asthma is an occupational disease for the plaintiff....") 7/7/2009
AC28813, AC30000 Hummel v. Marten Transport, Ltd. (Plaintiff filed workers' compensation claim after her husband was found dead in the sleeper cab of his employer's truck; "...the defendants appealed to this court, claiming that (1) the workers’ compensation commissioner improperly found that work-related stress was a substantial factor in Henry Hummel’s death when no medical expert testified to that effect, (2) the board incorrectly held that the penalty pursuant to § 31-303 applied to nonpayment of an award pending appeal and (3) social security widow’s benefits should be credited against workers’ compensation benefits.") 6/5/2009
Below is the workers' compensation law Appellate Court opinion issued in May 2009:
AC28918 - Testone v. C. R. Gibson Co. ("...[P]laintiff claims that the board should have determined that the commissioner improperly admitted the three reports and improperly relied on those reports in denying the plaintiff temporary partial disability benefits. The plaintiff also claims that the board improperly affirmed the commissioner’s ruling denying the plaintiff’s motion to correct and the determination that the plaintiff had not suffered a compensable recurrence or relapse under General Statutes § 31-307b.") 5/26/2009
Soracco v. Williams Scotsman, Inc. - SC17856 (Intervening plaintiff; standing; Whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether the allocation of settlement proceeds was reasonable) 5/11/2009
Donahue v. Veridiem, Inc. - SC18237 ("The appeal in the present case raises the issue of whether an employer subject to the conclusive presumption is precluded from challenging the claimant’s proof through crossexamination and submission of a written argument. The plaintiff, Maura Donahue, appeals from the decision of the compensation review board (board) affirming the decision of the workers’ compensation commissioner (commissioner)denying the plaintiff’s claim for compensation for medical care and permanent partial disability for her back injury. In a decision issued prior to Harpaz, the commissioner had concluded that, although the plaintiff’s back injury is conclusively presumed to be compensable because the named defendant, Veridiem, Inc., failed to file a timely notice contesting the plaintiff’s claim, the plaintiff’s evidence that this compensable injury had caused her need for the medical care and her disability for which she sought compensation was not credible. The plaintiff contends that the board’s decision must be reversed because the commissioner improperly allowed the defendant to contest her claim by challenging her proof.") 5/6/2009Here are the workers' compensation opinions for April 2009:
-
AC29461 Dechio v. Raymark Industries, Inc.
("Is an appeal taken from a supplemental order directing the fund to compensate a plaintiff a timely appeal challenging the findings and awards preceding that order if that appeal was taken outside the mandated twenty days from the issuing of the operative finding and award?")
Dissent
-
AC29346 Stec v. Raymark Industries, Inc.
("...[W]hether the filing of an appeal from the decision of a compensation commissioner to the workers’ compensation review board (board) outside of the statutory time period for filing such an appeal deprives the board of subject matter jurisdiction.")
Concurrence 4/6/2009
Dzienkiewicz v. Dept. of Correction - SC18255 ("The plaintiff...appeals from the decision of the compensation review board (review board) affirming the decision of the workers’ compensation commissioner (commissioner) dismissing his claim for benefits from the named defendant, the department of correction (defendant), on the ground that work stress was not a substantial cause of the plaintiff’s hypertension and stroke. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the review board properly concluded that the commissioner had not abused his discretion by refusing to admit into evidence a decision by the state medical examining board (medical board) awarding the plaintiff disability retirement benefits.") 3/3/2009
AC29293 - Brown v. United Technoligies Corp.
"This appeal concerns whether an injury suffered by an employee while walking at a pace akin to power walking during an unpaid lunch break on the employer’s premises is compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act (act), General Statutes § 31-275 et seq." 1/6/2009
-
AC29575 - Solonick v. Electric Boat Corporation
Whether the board improperly determined that to prove that his [plaintiff's] stress was work related, he was required to "establish that work conditions were sudden, unusual or unexpected"; whether commissioner improperly "relied upon medical opinion which had no proper factual underpinnings and was therefore incompetent expert opinion."
-
AC29324 Lopa v. Brinker International Inc. "[Whether the] United States Postal Service is not an employer within the ambit of the Connecticut's Workers' Compensation Act (act), General Statutes §31-275 et seq.
-
AC29049 Mleczko v. Haynes Construction Co.
Whether injury claimed arose out of out of the employment and occurred in the course of employment
8/11/2008
Birnie v. Electric Boat Corp. - SC17764 (Workers' compensation; doctrine of collateral estoppel; action by plaintiff, who was awarded widow's benefits under federal Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq.) following husband's death from heart attack suffered at workplace, to recover survivor's benefits under state Workers' Compensation Act (§ 31-306)) 8/4/2008
Deschenes v. Transco, Inc. - SC17852, 17853 (Workers' Compensation; Whether Employer Liable for Entire Disability Resulting from Combined Effects of Work-Related and Nonwork-Related Diseases Where it is Claimed that Nonwork-Related Disease was not Preexisting.) 6/9/2008
Jaiguay v. Vasquez - SC17814 (Workers' Compensation; Choice of Law; Whether Court Properly Concluded that New York Workers' Compensation law Applied to bar Wrongful Death Action Against Co-Employee and Employer.) 3/24/2008The following Supreme Court Advance Release Opinion was released today:
- Esposito v. Simkins Industries, Inc. - SC18019
[docket summary] [Workers' compensation; insurance; whether, under the Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association Act (guaranty act), General Statutes §§ 38a-836 through 38a-853, a self-insured employer that initially is liable for a workers’ compensation claim as the last insurer on the risk is permitted to seek apportionment, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-299b, against the defendant (CT Insurance Guaranty Association) for an insolvent insurance carrier’s share of workers’ compensation benefits]
3/10/2008
The following Supreme Court opinion was released today:
Harpaz v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc. - SC17844 [docket summary] (workers' compensation appeal; whether an employer that is deemed "conclusively presumed to have accepted the compensability of the alleged injury" under General Statutes section 31-294c(b) because of its failure to contest liability or commence payment of compensation within the time period prescribed is permitted to contest the extent of the claimant's disability from the alleged injury)
1/28/2008Evanuska v. Danbury - SC17850 [docket summary] (Workers' Compensation; Whether Plaintiff Volunteer Firefighters were Engaged in Fire Duties when they were Injured.) 11/19/2007Deschenes v. Transco, Inc. - SC17852, 17853 (Workers' compensation; apportionment of benefits; disability caused by two separate, but concurrently developing medical conditions, only one of which is occupational in nature; disability related to asbestos and cigarette exposure; "The sole issue in this appeal is whether the workers’ compensation benefits payable to a claimant with a 25 percent permanent partial disability in each lung, caused in part by work-related asbestos exposure, should be apportioned or reduced by the amount of that disability attributable to a concurrently developing nonoccupational disease, specifically cigarette smoking related emphysema.") |
|
|
|