CRB Case Annotations re: Section 31-275(16)

Personal injury may be established without being able to identify precise moment that back injury occurred during the course of a day of physically grueling work, as one may deduce the origin of the injury due to the onset of back pain the following morning. See, Sprague, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Trier ruled that claimant’s participation in basketball game was not voluntary, and was part of his employment on date of injury. CRB reversed; finding was based upon claimant’s subjective impression that failure to play basketball could have negative consequences, without any showing in evidence that employer made any concrete statement or engaged in any act that would lead a reasonable person to think that participation in basketball game was necessary to avoid negative employment-related consequences. Case did not satisfy exceptions to § 31-275(16)(B)(i).

See, Doe, § 31-294c notes (re: assertion that claimant’s death within two years of last date of employment preserved HIV infection claim under accidental injury theory); see also, Doe, § 31-275(15).

Claimant suffered post-traumatic stress disorder after being involved in a physical struggle with an armed customer, who eventually shot himself in the face. Later threat from a different customer triggered symptoms of PTSD. CRB affirmed trier’s finding that mental trauma arose from a physical injury, and was therefore compensable under § 31-275(16)(B)(ii). CRB discussed legislative history of P.A. 93-228, § 1, and Driscoll v. General Nutrition Corp., 252 Conn. 215 (2000). Board held that involvement in a serious physical altercation constitutes a physical injury, even if only minor physical trauma is sustained. See, Nunes, § 31-275(1), § 31-301. Factual findings.

The trier held the claimant’s mental injuries were not compensable under § 31-275(16)(B) as there was no physical injury. In support of her appeal, the claimant contended that the exclusion of mental injuries in § 31-275(16)(B) is unconstitutional as it violates the claimant’s rights under the state constitution. The board declined to consider the merits of the claimant’s appeal, as issues concerning the constitutionality of statutes are not justiciable by either the trial commissioner or this board.

CRB affirmed trier’s finding that claimant did not sustain physical injury following alleged toxic exposure to hydrogen sulfide at work. Though much debate centered on whether transitory symptoms such as headaches, nausea and eye irritation constitute physical injuries under statute, potentially making claimant’s post-traumatic stress disorder compensable despite the “mental-mental” exclusion § 31-275(16)(B)(ii), no objective evidence of a toxic gas was found during numerous inspections at employer’s plant. Trier relied upon the report of a doctor who did not believe that the claimant was exposed to a harmful toxic gas at all, and thought that claimant’s anxiety disorder was a malady he incorrectly attributes to that alleged physical stimulus.

Claimant argued that his post-traumatic stress disorder and alleged brain damage were caused by exposure to toxic gases at workplace. CRB affirmed trier’s finding that he proved neither a harmful chemical exposure at his workplace nor a physical injury of any kind, as medical evidence largely supported that result. CRB noted that perception of stress from abnormal responses to ordinary workplace incidents is not a valid basis for recovery of benefits under Chapter 568, as is the case in most jurisdictions.

Because the record fully supported the trial commissioner’s determination regarding lack of causation, the board did not address the claimant’s argument that his angina condition constituted a mental-physical injury rather than a mental-mental injury under § 31-275(16)(B)(ii), or whether the claimant’s claim was precluded by § 31-275(16)(B)(iii). See Franco, § 31-301 Factual findings.

Board affirmed trier’s dismissal of pre-1993 “mental-mental” claim, where trier found that claimant was not subjected to stimuli different than those in everyday employment life, but unilaterally misperceived the actions of his employer as discriminatory, leading to depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. CRB discussed “subjective causal nexus standard” rejected by most other states, and Connecticut law in related area of emotional distress in tort. Also cited at Smith, § 31-275(1).

CRB affirmed finding that decedent’s myocardial infarction was not compensable where trier found that neither his employment stress nor his activities during an employer sponsored golf outing substantially caused his injury. Issue was one of fact. Board declined to discuss whether § 31-275(16)(B)(i) also bars the claim, and noted that trier did not make a specific finding of fact as to whether the golf outing was an activity “the major purpose of which [was] social or recreational.” Such a finding is necessary to determine whether § 31-275(16)(B)(i) applies. See also, Kay, § 31-275(1), § 31-300.

Board affirmed trial commissioner’s determination that claimant sustained a compensable accidental injury when she was exposed to pine and other materials, which caused permanent reactive airways disease/asthma. Panel did not accept respondents’ argument that the claimant’s asthmatic condition, in order to be compensable, must meet the definition of an occupational disease. See also, Burke, § 31-301-4.

CRB affirmed trier’s conclusion that claimant’s psychiatric condition was compensable, as it was aggravated by a compensable heart condition. Board explained law making employer liable for the sequelae of a compensable injury. Here, the claimant sustained a compensable cardiac condition, which aggravated his pre-existing psychiatric condition. In an earlier decision, the state Supreme Court in Gartrell v. Dept. of Corection, 258 Conn. 137 (2001) remanded the case in order to limit the compensation for the psychiatric condition to that proportion of the disability due to the aggravation of the pre-existing disease that reasonably may be attributable to the work-related injury, as required under § 31-275(1)(D). That decision was later superseded on January 15, 2002, and the CRB was affirmed. See also, Gartrell, § 31-275(1).

Teacher appealed from trial commissioner’s decision that the injury he suffered during a meeting of the school’s mountain biking club was not compensable. CRB affirmed. Injuries resulting from voluntary participation in social or recreational activities are outside the definition of “personal injury.” The exception in § 31-275(16)(B)(iv) concerning participation in school-sponsored activities was enacted subsequent to the claimant’s injury, and did not retroactively apply to existing cases. See also, Sendra, § 31-301. Factual findings.

See, Reaves, § 31-294c.

Del Toro v. Stamford, 3731 CRB-7-97-11 (October 22, 1999), rev’d, 64 Conn. App. 1 (2001), cert. denied, 258 Conn. 913 (2001).

See, Del Toro, § 31-294c.

Biasetti v. Stamford, 3632 CRB-7-97-6 (September 8, 1998), aff’d, 250 Conn. 65 (1999)(dissenting opinion).

Claimant (a police officer) developed post-traumatic stress disorder after becoming involved in a gun battle with a suspect. He developed headaches, an upset stomach, and a pressure sensation in his leg as well; further, the PTSD led to his suffering a blackout two years later. Trial commissioner ruled that the “personal injury” exclusion for mental or emotional impairments in § 31-275(16)(B)(ii) precludes the claimant’s claim. CRB held that the claimant has not alleged a physical injury in this case, and that his PTSD cannot constitute an occupational disease under the statute because § 31-275(16)(B)(ii) requires that all personal injuries, including occupational diseases, have a physical component, even though the PTSD is intrinsic to the occupation of police officer within the meaning of § 31-275(15). (Vargas, C., dissenting) Humanitarian purpose of Act requires a broader reading of the statutory language, which can be read to allow “mental-mental” claims as occupational diseases. Further, the symptoms alleged by the claimant such as headaches and leg pain constitute a physical injury.

CRB affirmed the trial commissioner’s decision that § 31-275(16)(B)(i) did not bar the claimant’s claim for an injury which occurred while returning to work from a birthday luncheon. Specifically, the trial commissioner found that the claimant’s attendance at the luncheon was not voluntary and that the major purpose of the luncheon was not social.

Sanford v. Clinton Public Schools, 3446 CRB-3-96-10 (March 5, 1998), aff’d, 54 Conn. App. 266 (1999), cert. denied, 251 Conn. 917 (1999).

The “date of injury rule” regarding new legislation applies to claims of repetitive trauma. Where claimant’s alleged mental injury was caused by repetitive trauma and he was not disabled or diagnosed until after July 1, 1993, we will apply P.A. 93-228 (which became effective July 1, 1993). The claimant’s claim for mental injuries was disallowed pursuant to P.A. 93-228, which limited the definition of “personal injury” in § 31-275 C.G.S. so as to exclude a “mental or emotional impairment, unless such impairment arises from a physical injury or occupational disease.”

See, Reynolds, § 31-294c.

Claimant was playfully poked in the sides by a co-worker, which apparently aggravated a prior injury and caused him tremendous pain. Trier found that the squeeze was an injury, and ordered the insurer on the risk at that time to pay benefits. CRB affirmed: whether this constituted an injury was a factual decision for the trial commissioner. Epps v. Beiersdorf, 41 Conn. App. 430 (1996), discussed and compared to this case. See also, Pothier, § 31-275(1), § 31-301. Factual findings.

No error in trier’s dismissal of psychiatric claim. Although statutory definition of “personal injury” had not yet been amended to exclude “mental-mental” claims at the time of the events at issue here, the law still required proof of causal relationship within a reasonable degree of medical probability. Trier was entitled to credit testimony of doctor who felt that claimant would have “ended up the way he did” regardless of the work incidents mentioned.

Evans v. Shelton, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 155, 3108 CRB-4-95-6 (May 2, 1997), dismissed for lack of a final judgment, A.C. 17196 (January 14, 1998).

No automatic separation between repetitive trauma and occupational disease. Claimant’s asthma could have satisfied either or both definitions, depending on whether her asthma fell within the legal definition of those injuries. Trier did not improperly “fuse” the two definitions. See also, Evans, § 31-275(1), § 31-301. Appeal procedure, § 31-301. Factual findings, notes on Rules of Professional Conduct.

Doctor diagnosed claimant with stress-related vocal disorder. Commissioner found that “spasmodic dysphonia” was a physical impairment, and granted the claimant’s Motion to Preclude because the respondents had failed to file a timely notice to contest. Held, neither party introduced any evidence to establish the nature of spasmodic dysphonia, as all proceedings focused on notice issue. Claimant must adduce evidence sufficient for commissioner to conclude that subject matter jurisdiction over claim exists, including the presence of a personal injury. Reversed and remanded.

Doe v. Stamford, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 32, 2282 CRB-7-95-1 (October 9, 1996), rev’d, 241 Conn. 692 (1997).

The claimant, a police officer, was exposed to two infectious life threatening diseases on separate occasions during the course of employment, but as of the formal hearing had not tested positive for either of the diseases nor had he missed any time from work. The trial commissioner ruled that mere exposure to a disease does not constitute a viable claim under the Workers’ Compensation Act, and the CRB affirmed; (Vargas, C., dissenting) The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the claimant did sustain compensable injuries and was entitled to recover expenses for reasonable testing and treatment. The Court explained that it was undisputed that the claimant’s exposures were definitely located as to time and place and occurred during his employment. Section 31-275(16)(A) which defines “injury” does not require a pathological manifestation, and indeed it would be contrary to the humanitarian and remedial purpose of the Act to require that an employee who sustains actual exposure to a potentially fatal infectious disease must await the onset of the disease before he can recover expenses associated with necessary and possibly lifesaving medical intervention.

Claimant could not remember specific date of her injury, the injury was reported to her supervisor when it happened and a timely Form 30C was later filed. Held, definition of “accidental injury” in statute is meant to distinguish accidental injuries from repetitive trauma injuries and occupational diseases; “definitely located as to the time when and the place where the accident occurred” does not create a strict jurisdictional barrier. See also, Troske, § 31-294c.

Britt v. Fiskars/Wallace Manufacturing, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 375, 1503 CRB-1-92-9 (August 17, 1994).

Remanded. No findings as to last date of exposure or last date of employment for claim for back injury due to repetitive trauma. See, Seymour v. Bleich, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 312, 1484 CRB-6-92-8 (June 24, 1994). See also, Britt, § 31-294c.

Fusciello v. Ronnie Demeo, Inc., 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 283, 1535 CRB-6-92-10 (June 7, 1994).

See, Fusciello, § 31-275(1) and § 31-307.

Duncan v. Dow Chemical Company, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 276, 1442 CRB-2-92-6 (June 7, 1994).

Trier’s finding that claimant’s disability i.e. organic brain syndrome, allegedly caused by exposure to chemicals was not the result of a workplace incident supported by evidence. See also, Duncan, § 31-301. Factual findings.

O’Connor v. Connecticut Light & Power Company, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 265, 1536 CRB-8-92-10 (June 2, 1994).

See, O’Connor, § 31-275(1) and § 31-301. Factual findings.

Greenwood v. Perkin Elmer Corporation, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 160, 1517 CRB-7-92-9 (April 26, 1994), aff’d, 39 Conn. App. 907 (1995)(per curiam).

Trier concluded claimant suffered a traumatic brain injury in addition to previously approved back and neck injuries. See also, Greenwood, § 31-301. Factual findings.

DeLucia v. Modena, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 212, 1471 CRB-3-92-7 (March 15, 1994).

Hairdresser sustained right shoulder injury due to repetitive trauma caused by years of employment in the same profession. See also, DeLucia, § 31-299b and § 31-301. Appeal procedure.

Castelvetro v. Gravymaster, Inc., 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 210, 1463 CRB-3-92-7 (March 15, 1994).

See, § 31-275(15), Occupational disease and Fritz v. Gravymaster, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 208, 1462 CRB-3-92-7 (March 15, 1994).

Fritz v. Gravymaster, Inc., 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 208, 1462 CRB-3-92-7 (March 15, 1994).

See, Fritz, § 31-275(15).

Spindler v. Med-Center Home Health Center, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 130, 1474 CRB-7-92-7 (February 28, 1994).