CRB Case Annotations re: Section 31-300

CRB affirmed finding of unreasonable contest and undue delay. Contemporaneous hospital report listed claimant as alleging that her injury had occurred the day before, as alleged; respondents also provided immediate medical care. Respondents’ attempts at impeaching her testimony could reasonably be inferred by trier as attempts to evade responsibility rather than as sound basis for denying claim.

See, Ortiz, § 31-295 (10% interest award was not entered pursuant to § 31-300, but rather § 31-295); also cited at Ortiz, § 31-301. Factual findings.

CRB affirmed finding of undue delay and award of 12% interest, as total disability benefits were not paid as required by statute. Facts justified drawing of inferences that supported finding of undue delay. CRB also remanded on amount of attorney’s fee award, as no formal hearings were held (save pro forma hearing), and respondents did not have opportunity to cross-examine regarding accuracy of figures in attorney’s affidavit. See, Regan, § 31-278, § 31-307.

CRB affirmed trial commissioner’s award of attorney’s fees where the respondents did not raise an objection at the time claimant’s counsel detailed the basis for the fee amount requested. Furthermore, only the amount of the fee was challenged by the respondents not the trier’s finding of undue delay.

CRB deferred to trier’s finding that there was no unreasonable contest, as trier was in better position than was CRB to gauge legitimacy of respondents’ uncertainties regarding origin of injury and motives in defending case. No error. See, Prescott, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-307, § 31-310.

The issue before the CRB was whether the claimant waived the 120-day time limit of § 31-300 by sending two letters to the trial commissioner requesting that a decision be issued promptly. The board found that the claimant’s letters were in fact requesting that the trier issue a decision, but they did not request a new formal hearing. This is a significant distinction, because if we were to construe a request for the issuance of a decision as an objection to the lateness of the trier’s decision, then once the trier’s decision is issued, the complaining party could then review the decision and decide whether to enforce the 120-day rule. In essence, the party could choose to enforce its right to invalidate a ruling only after the party reviews the decision. In order to avoid this gamesmanship, we must require that the objecting party request that a new hearing be held.

CRB affirmed trier’s finding of unreasonable contest, as it was within his discretion as factfinder to rely upon claimant’s representations that respondents had continuously failed to authorize medical treatment over four-year span.

CRB affirmed award of $2500 attorney’s fee where employer failed to introduce promised evidence of claimant’s compensation rate, or any evidence supporting their contest of total disability claim. Trier’s granting of motion for attorney’s fee was implicit finding of unreasonable contest, and $2500 amount was explained by counsel’s affidavit and was not itself challenged by respondents. See, McCurrey, § 31-288, § 31-310.

Board dismissed the claimant’s appeal insofar as it related to a § 31-290a claim. However, as the claimant in her appeal also alleged that the trial commissioner erred in denying her request for interest and attorney’s fees, which was a separate issue from the § 31-290a claim, the board considered that issue and found no error. See also, Spak v. Shelton Lakes Residence, 4372 CRB-4-01-3 (April 26, 2001), § 31-301, Appeal Procedure.

Trier corrected findings to reflect undue delay in payment of compensation through fault of employer. Attorney’s fee had been awarded, but not interest. CRB remanded as required by Imbrogno v. Stamford Hospital, 28 Conn. App. 113 (1992), which does not allow awards of one without the other in cases of undue delay. See, DiBello, § 31-308a.

CRB affirmed trier’s award of interest and attorney’s fees on unpaid temporary partial benefits and delayed weekly checks. Some temporary partial benefits remained unpaid despite uncontradicted evidence that claimant could not maintain concurrent employment position due to injury, while other benefits were improperly discontinued without the filing of a Form 36 as required by § 31-296. However, case was remanded for further proceedings on amount of attorney’s fee where trial commissioner denied request of respondents’ counsel to summon claimant’s counsel to the stand so that he might be questioned regarding the figures contained in his attorney’s fee petition. Also, CRB could not discern trier’s thought process in setting $10,000.00 amount of fee award. See, Cirrito, § 31-294d, § 31-301. Factual Findings; also cited at Cirrito, § 31-298.

Trier awarded attorney’s fees based on unreasonable contest of neck surgery. No error in failing to award interest, as there was no evidence that any payments were unduly delayed. See, Bilodeau, § 31-293; also cited at Bilodeau, § 31-299a.

In a footnote, CRB rejected claimant’s argument that trier’s decision was void due to violation of 120-day rule. Claimant did not object until Reasons for Appeal were filed, which constituted waiver of the statutory time limit. See Schreck, § 31-293, § 31-301 appeal procedure. Prior decision at Schreck, 3322 CRB-7-96-4 (Sept. 23, 1997) (dismissal order), rev’d, 51 Conn. App. 92 (1998), rev’d on different grounds, 250 Conn. 592 (1999), appeal reinstated, 3322 CBR-7-96-4 (July 21, 2000), § 31-301 appeal procedure.

Statutory changes in the amount of interest payable under § 31-300 and § 37-3a apply to existing debts, as of the date the amendment takes effect. However, attorney’s fees cannot be charged to respondents where they were not allowable for undue delay in 1970, when decedent’s was injured. Amendment did not take effect until 1988, and inclusion of attorney’s fees imposed new, substantive obligation on respondents. Legal fee itself was reduced by commissioner to 12% of recovery without explanation of reasons behind reduction; CRB remanded for articulation. Interest award based only upon principal made up of late COLA payments would differ from an interest award also based in part on late payments of weekly benefits, as different interest rates apply to “adjustments” and “payments” under § 31-300 “undue delay” provision. See, Melendez, §§ 31-278, 31-298, 31-303; decision on motion in Melendez, 4178 CRB-2-00-1 (May 24, 2001) (claimant moved to correct/articulate CRB opinion), § 31-301. Appeal procedure.

Trial commissioner could not levy $1000 fee against Second Injury Fund for unreasonable contest/unreasonable prosecution of reimbursement claim when, at time of injury, § 31-300 only allowed fee awards in cases where claimant prevailed or where benefits were discontinued without proper notice under § 31-296. See, Soares, § 31-301(f); prior decision in Soares, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 189, 1377 CRB-3-92-1 (May 4, 1994), infra, § 31-297, § 31-307b, § 31-315.

See Schiano, § 31-278, § 31-303. See also, prior decisions in Schiano, 3436 CRB-4-96-10 (April 8, 1998), and Schiano, 1852 CRB-4-93-9 (Dec. 7, 1994), aff’d., 57 Conn. App. 406 (2000), discussed at § 31-293 and § 31-301 Appeal procedure, and Schiano, 3315 CRB-4-96-4 (May 16, 1997), § 31-301 Appeal procedure.

CRB affirmed trier’s denial of attorney’s fees and interest for undue delay and unreasonable contest, as there was evidence that etiology of seizures was uncertain. See also, Wierzbicki, § 31-294c, § 31-307.

CRB affirmed trial commissioner’s award of $800 attorney’s fee against appellant Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association. Trier had jurisdiction to issue attorney’s fee award while merits of case were on appeal to Appellate Court. Undue delay underlying award was premised on conduct of appellant that had not been the subject of a previous award of attorney’s fees, and the amount of the fee was supported by an affidavit that the appellant could have contested if it had chosen to do so. See also, Pantanella, § 31-298; prior decisions in Pantanella, 3937 CRB-1-98-11 (January 7, 2000), aff’d, 65 Conn. App. 46 (2001), § 31-299b, § 31-300, § 31-301. Factual findings, and cited at § 31-298, § 31-315; and Pantanella, 3377 CRB-1-96-7 (January 28, 1998), aff’d, 65 Conn. App. 46 (2001), § 31-298, § 31-299b, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-355(e).

CRB affirmed award of attorney’s fees, as trier could reasonably have found state’s delay in contesting liability for psychiatric treatment to be unreasonable. However, case was remanded for new determination of sum of fee award, as there was no evidence in record to establish an appropriate amount. See also, Vetre, § 31-297, § 31-298, § 31-307. Prior decisions in Vetre, 3948 CRB-6-98-12 (February 14, 2000), § 31-298, § 31-301. Appeal procedure; and Vetre, 3443 CRB-6-96-10 (January 16, 1998), § 31-298.

Whether to award attorney’s fees and interest for unreasonable delay and/or unreasonable contest pursuant to § 31-300 is a discretionary decision to be made by the trial commissioner. Here, the trier found that in light of complex legal and medical issues, respondents’ contest was reasonable, and respondents did not unduly delay processing of claim. Board found no abuse of discretion. See also, Sharkey, § 31-349.

CRB held that claimant waived the mandatory 120-day period, where claimant’s letter of protest was mailed after the trier’s decision had been issued. The 120 days commenced on the date the last brief was filed, and expired on July 13, 1999. Finding and Dismissal was issued on July 14, 1999. The claimant’s letter of protest was mailed on July 15, 1999 and apparently “crossed in the mail” with the Finding and Dismissal. Board found waiver where the trier’s decision was issued prior to the claimant’s letter being mailed on July 15th, and noted that the Finding and Dismissal was indeed received by one of the parties on July 15th. The board explicitly rejected the respondents’ argument that the 120-day rule applies to awards but not dismissals, as the term “award” in § 31-300 was meant to apply both to awards and dismissals. See also, Kay, § 31-275(1), § 31-275(16).

Where two awards of permanency were given based on two different medical reports, CRB modified trial commissioner’s interest award to reflect the different dates of the underlying medical opinions. See also Bilotta, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-308(b). Prior decision in Bilotta, 3536 CRB-1-97-2 (May 26, 1998), § 31-308(a), § 31-308(b).

Trier awarded $5000 attorney’s fee after finding respondents unreasonably contested liability and unduly delayed benefits. Though advance notice of issue to parties was unnecessary for the trier to make findings regarding impropriety of employer’s conduct in defending claim, the amount of an attorney’s fee is generally determined after both sides are informed that the subject is being considered. Here, claimant’s affidavit regarding expenses was not received by commission until after decision had been issued, and respondents only had two business days to file an objection to the claimant’s request for fees in her proposed findings. CRB remanded this issue so that technical requirements of due process could be satisfied. See also, Simmons, § 31-301. Factual findings; cited at Simmons, § 31-275(1).

CRB found trier’s determination of unreasonable delay and contest was amply supported by the record where claimant’s treating physician had increased his permanent partial disability rating, and respondent did not depose treating physician prior to formal hearing. Though the amount of attorney’s fees was not specifically addressed at the formal hearing, the commissioner’s fee award of $2,500.00 was supported by the record. See also, Saleh, § 31-279-2, § 31-298, § 31-301-9 and § 31-315.

Auger v. Stratford, 3944 CRB-4-98-12 (January 14, 2000), rev’d, 64 Conn. App. 75 (2001).

No error in trial commissioner’s failure to grant corrections regarding entitlement to interest or attorney’s fees, as reasonable minds could differ on the instant legal question, and undue delay was not shown as a matter of law. Appellate Court reversed on the underlying § 31-284b issue. See also, Auger, § 31-284b; cited at Auger, § 7-433c and § 31-296 Voluntary agreements (discontinuance of payments).

Pantanella v. Enfield Ford, 3937 CRB-1-98-11 (January 7, 2000), aff’d, 65 Conn. App. 46 (2001), cert. denied, 258 Conn. 930 (2001).

CRB affirmed trial commissioner’s assessment of attorney’s fees and interest on ground of undue delay, as appellant’s conduct could warrant such sanctions. See also Pantanella, § 31-298, § 31-301. Factual findings; cited at Pantanella, § 31-298, § 31-315. Subsequent decision in Pantanella, 4220 CRB-1-00-4 (December 19, 2000), supra and at § 31-298; prior decision in Pantanella, 3377 CRB-1-96-7 (January 28, 1998), aff’d, 65 Conn. App. 46 (2001), § 31-298, 31-299b, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-355(e).

Award of attorney’s fees was properly made following hearings concerning the limited issue of the period of claimant’s temporary total disability. See prior decision in Bailey, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 433, 3152 CRB-5-95-8 (September 3, 1996), § 31-301. Appeal procedure, § 31-301. Factual findings. Trier may decide sua sponte that respondent’s argument lacks sufficient merit to constitute reasonable ground of contest, and award attorney’s fees. In fact, the trial commissioner who presides over the hearings is the best person to perform that task, as he is the person most familiar with the proceedings. Trier here based his decision on permissible evidentiary rulings. See prior decision in Bailey, 3694 CRB-1-97-9 (January 12, 1999), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 65 Conn. App. 592 (2001), § 31-298, § 31-301. Appeal procedure. Factual foundation existed for a finding of unreasonable contest. A second award of attorney’s fees was reversed, however, as a previous commissioner had not actually ordered the respondent to pay the claimant a $12,000 attorney’s fee, contrary to the trier’s assumption. See also, Bailey, § 31-307; cited at Bailey, § 31-284b, § 31-294d, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Claimant/appellant failed to object to lateness of trial commissioner’s decision until after it was issued, and her objection was accordingly deemed waived. See also, Saporoso, § 31-301. Factual findings.

CRB held that claimant waived the 120 day rule even though claimant’s counsel alleged that it had inquired with the trial commissioner several times as to when the decision would be issued. Board noted that there was no record of the claimant’s alleged protest regarding the 120-day rule. See also, Lalanne, § 31-301. Factual findings.

CRB reversed trial commissioner’s finding of unreasonable contest, although trial commissioners are normally accorded wide discretion. Board held that the respondents had a reasonable basis for contesting the claimant’s claim, particularly in light of the independent medical examiner’s opinion that the injury was not work-related. See also, Malafronte, § 31-301. Factual findings.

See, Serfilippi, § 31-296 Voluntary agreements (approval of).

CRB affirmed award of attorney’s fees and interest for undue delay, as a careful reading of a superficially confusing award brought into focus a legally consistent interpretation of the commissioner’s conclusions. See also, Hyde, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-296 Voluntary agreements (discontinuance of payments).

CRB affirmed trier’s determination that respondents and Second Injury Fund had unreasonably contested claim of temporary total disability and unduly delayed payment for said disability and medical treatment. Fund had argued that respondents were responsible for claimant’s temporary total disability, while respondents had argued that Fund should pay. See also, Aguayo, § 31-298.

Claimant was awarded interest and attorney’s fees for unreasonable contest and undue delay. CRB affirmed award. Trier was entitled to fault respondents for withholding benefits where issue was which insurer was responsible, and where respondents failed to obtain a medical report that supported their argument that they were not responsible for the claimant’s disability. Chairman’s attorney’s fee guidelines need not be applied to awards under § 31-300 if trier thinks a greater sum is appropriate. No evidence that this award was an abuse of discretion. See also, Heene, § 31-308(a); cited at Heene, § 31-310.

First, the CRB affirmed the trier’s decision that the respondents’ refusal to authorize surgery prevented the claimant from receiving necessary surgery for his compensable ankle injury, and that said conduct constituted unreasonable delay. All of the parties agreed that the claimant should undergo surgery on his ankle, and the surgery was scheduled but subsequently canceled as a result of the refusal of the respondents to authorize said surgery due to the lack of an agreement as to apportionment. Next, the CRB remanded the case because trier awarded attorney’s fees without also awarding interest. Finally, CRB agreed with the respondents’ contention that the imposition of a fine for undue delay is not permitted under § 31-300, but that a fine may be levied under § 31-288(b) in an amount of five hundred dollars or less.

The trial commissioner found that the respondents had unreasonably contested liability and thus awarded attorney’s fees and interest. The CRB affirmed the trial commissioner’s conclusion regarding unreasonable contest and thus affirmed the award of attorney’s fees, but remanded for a determination of whether there had also been undue delay so as to support an award of interest.

The trial commissioner found that both the insurance carrier and the Fund had unreasonably contested payments under § 31-301(f). Additionally, the trial commissioner found that the Fund was responsible for payments under § 31-301(f). Subsequently, pursuant to a Supreme Court decision, the order to make payments pending appeal was amended to make the carrier rather than the Fund liable. The CRB affirmed the trial commissioner’s award of attorney’s fees against the carrier for unreasonable contest, because both the carrier and the Fund knew that one of them would eventually be held liable, and therefore should have made payments rather than leave the claimant with no benefits for an extended period.

CRB remanded case to trial commissioner for articulation of interest rate and attorney’s fees.

Czujak v. Bridgeport, 3535 CRB-4-97-2 (June 10, 1998), aff’d, 55 Conn. App. 789 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 920 (2000).

Award of attorney’s fees and interest based on undue delay was reversed, as the underlying award (an unpaid § 7-433b(b) cap adjustment) was reversed by the CRB. See also, Czujak, § 7-433c, § 31-301. Appeal procedure, § 31-307a, § 31-315.

Liano v. Bridgeport, 3561 CRB-4-97-3 (June 3, 1998), rev’d in part, 55 Conn. App. 75 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 909 (1999).

CRB remanded case to trial commissioner where trier awarded attorney’s fees but did not provide any findings to substantiate the amount of the award. Prior decisions at Liano, 3447 CRB-4-96-10 (January 6, 1998), aff’d, 51 Conn. App. 905 (per curiam), cert. denied, 248 Conn. 907 (1999), § 7-433c; Liano, 3299 CRB-4-95-10 (March 25, 1997), § 31-294c, § 31-297, § 31-301. Factual findings; Liano, 3199 CRB-4-95-10 (March 25, 1997), § 31-279-3, § 31-298, § 31-307; Liano, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 201, 2033 CRB-4-94-5 (July 25, 1995), appeal and cross appeal dismissed, lack of final judgment, A.C. 15082 (June 6, 1996), cert. denied, 238 Conn. 906 (1996), infra and at § 7-433b, § 31-310.

Trial commissioner awarded attorney’s fees. CRB remanded, as findings did not indicate basis for attorney’s fees (i.e. unreasonable delay or unreasonable contest) and did not include interest along with attorney’s fees. See also, Dalling, § 31-301. Factual findings.

In a footnote, panel approved award of $2500 attorney’s fee, and commissioner’s finding of unreasonable delay of payment of compensation. See also, Coley, § 31-301. Appeal procedure. § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-343, and prior opinion on § 31-301(f) issue dated February 28, 1997.

No error in awarding $2500 in attorney’s fees and interest against respondent for undue delay in payment of benefits. $2500 was a reasonable approximation of 20% of the value of the award, and the respondent was not denied due process because a “preformal hearing” was not scheduled at which the state could have tried to settle the claim. Respondent criticized for downplaying importance of informal hearing stage. See also, Anglero, § 31-308(a).

One hundred twenty day period starts running from the date the last trial brief is filed. See also, Fenn, § 31-298, § 31-325.

Claimant repeatedly missed hearings, and trier denied further postponement of formal hearing. He then refused to let claimant’s counsel introduce evidence regarding the alleged injury because the claimant was not present to establish a factual basis for the claim. He dismissed the claim “without prejudice to the claimant to file a Motion to Reopen and set aside the dismissal within four months of the granting of said Motion to Dismiss.” Respondent appealed that decision to CRB. Panel cited Santora v. A.C.E.S., 2299 CRB-3-95-11 (February 26, 1997), in which CRB stated that a dismissal “without prejudice” was an inappropriate type of decision to follow a formal hearing in workers’ compensation proceedings. This case is similar; formal hearing was a trial on the merits, and claimant did not meet his burden of proof. Trier should have dismissed claim. Insertion of language suggesting that claimant seek to reopen case, however, led claimant to believe that an appeal to CRB was unnecessary. This would deprive him of his statutory right to appeal. Further, case contained inconsistent conclusions of law. Remanded for a new trial.

Commissioner’s decision was not issued within 120 days of close of last hearing. Claimant’s counsel attempted to pursue right to speedy decision soon after the 120-day limit had passed, so there was no waiver of that time limit. The Compensation Review Board further explained its reasoning in a January 30, 1998 ruling denying respondents Motion for Reconsideration.

CRB held that the respondent waived its right to enforce the 120-day time limit in § 31-300 by failing to raise an objection until after the trial commissioner’s decision had been issued. CRB affirmed the trial commissioner’s determination that the respondent unreasonably contested liability for the claimant’s permanent partial disability and benefit rate in this case, as it was a factual question for the trier. CRB found no merit to the respondent’s argument that because the claimant’s claim was filed under § 7-433c the trial commissioner lacked “jurisdiction” to award interest or attorney’s fees. See also, Wilson, § 31-310.

Trier ordered payment of temporary total and temporary partial disability benefits. No evidence was introduced to establish the relevant dates, however, as the commissioner simply ordered the parties to “meet and exchange information necessary” to determine the amounts owed. This is the trier’s job once a case proceeds to the formal hearing stage. Remanded. See also, Vargas, § 31-294d, § 31-295.

CRB held that that the respondents waived their right to enforce the 120-day time limit in § 31-300 because they did not object to the delay of the issuance of a decision by the trial commissioner until after the decision was issued. See also, Rulewicz, § 31-349.

Decision issued over two years after last formal hearing and filing of proposed findings. Fund sent a letter one month before decision was issued objecting that trier did not have jurisdiction to decide case based on passage of amendment to § 31-349, but did not cite 120-day provision as a reason for their objection, and did not express concern over the time delay. CRB held this to be a waiver of the 120-day provision. See also, Ridente, § 31-349 notes.

CRB concluded that the respondents waived their right to enforce the 120-day time limit in § 31-300 as they did not object until after the trial commissioner’s decision was issued. See also, Zering, § 31-294d.

Last formal hearing held on June 30, 1995; Fund sought, was granted one-week extension to file brief, but nothing was filed. CRB held that the 120-day period generally begins running on the date the last brief is filed, whether or not done at a pro forma hearing. Since nothing was submitted here, the clock began ticking on June 30, 1995. Decision was issued on January 11, 1996. Fund did not object to lateness of decision until after it was issued, however. CRB ruled that such inaction constituted a waiver of the 120-day provision. See also, Soto, § 31-349.

State v. Champagne, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 245, 3269 CRB-8-96-1 (June 24, 1997).

Case remanded; no written findings or conclusions. See also, Champagne, § 31-288.

Perri v. Mitchell Motors, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 242, 3259 CRB-6-96-1 (June 24, 1997).

Commissioner should not have entered finding that claimant would not be entitled to further § 31-308a benefits after the date of the formal hearing. Although that statute allows a commissioner to determine the duration of an award, he cannot presume to know that a claimant will not merit benefits in the future, as his condition is still unknown. Policy against cases being presented in a piecemeal fashion relates to delayed litigation of already-ripe issues, not inchoate future claims. See also, Perri, § 31-308a.

Award of attorney’s fees and interest affirmed. Whether respondents unreasonably contested liability for surgery was factual question for trial commissioner, who found that respondents waited over a year and a half after the treating physician recommended surgery to have an independent medical examination performed on the claimant. Not unreasonable for commissioner to conclude that respondents’ examiner’s disagreement on issue of causation was untimely and unreasonable ground for contest.

Minneman v. Norwich/Board of Education, 2294 CRB-2-95-2 (December 13, 1996), aff’d, 47 Conn. App. 913 (1997)(per curiam), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 962 (1998).

Commissioner issued decision long after the 120-day time limit had passed. Claimant raised no objection, however, until after the decision was issued and her case was dismissed. Subsumed within claimant’s argument was notion that she chose to await the late decision on her attorney’s advice; this amounts to waiver of the 120-day time limit. See also, Minneman, § 31-298, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Deoliveira v. Ross & Roberts, Inc., 3033 CRB-4-95-4 (December 13, 1996), aff’d, 47 Conn. App. 919 (1997)(per curiam), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 (1998).

See, Deoliveira, § 31-275(1).

Dichello v. Holgrath Corporation, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 441, 2249 CRB-5-94-12 (September 5, 1996), aff’d, 49 Conn. App. 339 (1998).

Commissioner did not issue decision within 120 days of closing of record. CRB noted that former rule requiring demonstration of prejudice was overruled by Supreme Court in Stewart v. Tunxis Service Center, 237 Conn. 71 (1996). However, waiver of the 120-day deadline may still occur. Here, claimant filed a motion to open the record subsequent to the issuance of the late decision, which motion was denied by the trial commissioner. No objection was made to the late decision until amended reasons for appeal were filed nine months after the late decision. CRB held that these actions constituted waiver of the § 31-300 time limit. See also, Dichello, § 31-294d, and § 31-300.

Stewart v. Tunxis Service Center, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 135, 1684 CRB-6-93-4 (February 1, 1995), rev’d, 237 Conn. 71 (1996).

CRB relied on Stevens v. Hartford, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 134, 831 CRD-1-89-2 (August 6, 1990) and Supreme Court’s decision in Besade v. Interstate Security Services, 212 Conn. 441 (1989). CRB held, as claimant failed to assert any claim of prejudice by trier’s failure to issue a decision within 120 days, the commissioner’s decision will stand if valid in all other respects. Supreme Court reversed CRB and held statutory language was amended in 1985 adding 120-day time period, which provision supports mandatory compliance. Parties may waive noncompliance. Remanded to CRB to determine whether there was a waiver of the right to challenge the trier’s delayed decision. Stewart II. In decision dated October 30, 1996, Stewart v. Tunxis Service Center, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 69, CRB cited the rules set forth by the Supreme Court regarding waiver, and distinguished the Dichello case (see above), as the claimant’s attorney here requested a new formal hearing and objected to the lateness of the decision before it was issued. Case remanded for new hearing.

Commissioner awarded attorney’s fees and interest against respondents. Reversed: parties expressly waived claims for costs, and respondents could not be expected to defend issue once it was waived, even if record contained evidence of undue delay.

Kilton v. Cote & Sons, Inc., 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 199, 2178 CRB-7-94-10 (April 23, 1996), dismissed for lack of final judgment, A.C. 15936 (September 19, 1996).

Trial commissioner initially awarded attorney’s fees in Finding and Award. In subsequent articulation the commissioner stated that he did not award attorney’s fees to be paid by the respondents, but merely set a cap on the fees to be paid by the claimant. The commissioner found that the respondents were responsible for an “undue delay” in payments of all indemnity benefits, and thus ordered the respondents to pay twelve percent interest on those payments. As an award of interest without an award of attorney’s fees for undue delay pursuant to § 31-300 is not permissible, CRB remanded this matter to the trial commissioner. (Miles, C., dissenting) (the language of § 31-300 should be interpreted to allow discretion to a trial commissioner to award either interest or attorney’s fees, or both, based upon the unique circumstances of each case).

Byars v. Whyco Chromium, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 386, 2187 CRB-5-94-10 (October 5, 1995), aff’d, 40 Conn. App. 938 (1996)(per curiam).

It was within commissioner’s discretion to deny attorney’s fees and interest. In the instant case, the commissioner did not find that there was a delay in payments or an unreasonable contest, and thus did not award interest. In addition, the commissioner found that the claimant was not entitled to attorney’s fees (claimant had discharged his attorney and never paid him for his services).

Trial commissioner fined respondent $500 for failure to appear at informal hearing. Held: trial commissioner improperly relied on § 31-300 in making fine. Although § 31-288(b) could apply, no formal hearing was held, and no record existed for review--thus making an appeal impossible. Since respondent has right to appeal fine, CRB reversed. No remand.

Liano v. Bridgeport, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 201, 2033 CRB-4-94-5 (July 25, 1995), appeal and cross appeal dismissed, lack of final judgment, A. C. 15082 (June 6, 1996), cert. denied, 238 Conn. 906 (1996).

Commissioner’s finding of unreasonable contest affirmed in light of “outside overtime” decision; further determination necessary regarding attorney’s fees. See, Liano, § 7-433b, § 31-310. Subsequent decisions at Liano, 3561 CRB-4-97-3 (June 3, 1998), rev’d in part, 55 Conn. App. 75 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 909 (1999), supra; Liano, 3447 CRB-4-96-10 (January 6, 1998), aff’d, 51 Conn. App. 905 (per curiam), cert. denied, 248 Conn. 907 (1999), § 7-433c; Liano, 3299 CRB-4-95-10 (March 25, 1997), § 31-294c, § 31-297, § 31-301. Factual findings; Liano, 3199 CRB-4-95-10 (March 25, 1997), § 31-279-3, § 31-298, § 31-307.

Eleven-month delay in issuance of decision by commissioner is unnecessary and inequitable, but prejudice still must be shown in order to vacate award on grounds of lateness. Affirmed. See also, Owens, § 31-307a, and § 31-310. But see, Stewart v. Tunxis Service Center, 237 Conn. 71 (1996).

At time of claimant’s 1982 injury, district jurisdiction was still in existence, and 120-day time limit for issuing decisions had not yet been enacted. 1985 amendment of § 31-300 does not require automatic divestiture of jurisdiction in commissioner if no decision reached in 120 days unless prejudice is shown. No prejudice demonstrated here. See also, Cruz, § 31-301. Appeal procedure. But see later cases.

Where an award of attorney’s fees is made, its reasonableness depends on many factors. Here, award corresponded to 20 percent of estimated lost wages, consistent with chairman’s fee guidelines. Evidence sufficient to refute contention that commissioner abused discretion. See also, Grillo, § 31-310.

Respondents did not refute claimant’s assertion that written approval for discontinuance of benefits was not obtained before payment stopped. Where CRB determined that claimant was properly entitled to benefits, § 31-300 required commissioner to award interest and attorney’s fees if payment discontinued without prior written approval. See also, Pelletier, § 31-307, and § 31-310.

In light of decision upholding commissioner’s award, and finding that fee agreement existed entitling claimant’s counsel to twenty percent of benefits received as a result of counsel’s efforts, CRB had no reason to overturn award of attorney’s fees. Claimant failed to place copy of fee agreement in record and did not support allegation that weekly payment ordered by commissioner caused him hardship.

Claim for attorney’s fees properly denied where trier found contest by respondents reasonable. Additionally, no basis that interest rate awarded should have been at a higher rate. See also, Tyc, § 31-308(a) and § 31-310.

Unless a party shows they were prejudiced by receipt of trier’s finding later than one hundred and twenty (120) days after conclusion of trial proceedings, CRB will not order a new hearing. See also, Weglarz, § 31-298. span class="bold">But see later cases.

Marchitto v. Hamden Upholstery Co., 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 289, 1558 CRB-3-92-11 (June 8, 1994).

CRB affirmed trier’s discretionary award of attorney’s fees.

Soares v. Glass Industries, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 189, 1377 CRB-3-92-1 (May 4, 1994).

Remanded where trier’s finding failed to address claim for interest and attorney’s fees although issue was raised below. See also, Soares, § 31-297, § 31-307b and § 31-315.

Haugh v. Leake & Nelson, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 201, 1421 CRB-2-92-5 (March 15, 1994).

CRB affirmed trier’s finding that respondent’s contest of liability was not unreasonable thereby denying claimant’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. See also, Haugh, § 31-284b, § 31-301. Appeal procedure, and § 31-307.

Versage v. Kurt Volk, Inc., 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 253, 1313 CRD-3-91-10 (November 17, 1993), dismissed for lack of final judgment, A.C. 13072 (February 16, 1994).

Remanded. Trier abused his discretion in ordering respondent insurer to pay interest pursuant to § 31-300 for period prior to the determination of maximum medical improvement and prior to demand for § 31-308 benefits. Also remanded to determine whether an award of interest pursuant to § 31-295(c) is appropriate and whether interest pursuant to § 31-300 or § 31-295(c) should lie against either the employer or insurer or both. Discussion of respondent insurer’s challenge to trier’s award of interest under the Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association Act, § 38a-836 to § 38a-853 and the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Fletcher v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 182, 1322 CRD-8-91-10 (September 13, 1993).

CRB held even though trier’s finding was issued beyond the statutory 120 day period, here, claimant has not alleged any prejudice due to the delay. Therefore, claimant cannot obtain a new hearing. See also, Fletcher, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Petta v. Waterbury Hospital, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 161, 1310 CRD-5-91-9 (August 23, 1993).

CRB found trier’s failure to award interest was not an abuse of discretion. See also, Petta, § 31-298, § 31-299b, § 31-301. Appeal procedure and § 31-308a.

Hunt v. Mirror Polishing and Plating Co., 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 61, 1254 CRD-5-91-7 (April 21, 1993).

Remanded to determine which respondents are liable to pay interest and attorney’s fee. See also, Hunt, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Byars v. Whyco Chromium Company, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 39, 1257 CRD-5-91-7 (March 10, 1993), dismissed for lack of final judgment, 33 Conn. App. 667 (1994).

Remanded where record before CRB unclear as to whether or not claimant was represented by counsel in proceedings below. As trier ordered interest on the award, if claimant was represented by an attorney during any part of the proceedings below, then a reasonable attorney’s fee must be awarded. See also, Byars, § 31-294d, § 31-296, and § 31-301-9. Additional evidence.

Wheeler v. Bender Plumbing Supply of Waterbury, Inc., 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 140, 1186 CRD-5-91-3 (June 5, 1992).

Award for attorney’s fee affirmed as trier found respondents unreasonably contested liability. Such an award is a matter within the discretion of the trial commissioner.

Miner v. Watertown, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 100, 971 CRD-5-90-1 (April 28, 1992).

Reversed trier’s award for 12% interest and attorney’s fees as it is not necessary for respondent to present evidence in order to make a reasonable or good faith contest. There must be a finding of fault or neglect or unreasonable contest in order to award interest at a rate higher than that permitted by § 37-3a. As a delay in payment did in fact exist, award for interest is justified at a rate prescribed by § 37-3a. See also, Miner, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-308(a), and § 31-308(b).

Lynch v. Red Star Express, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 75, 1133 CRD-3-90-11 (March 9, 1992).

Before a commissioner’s decision may be set aside due to failure to satisfy § 31-300 time requirements (written award sent after the conclusion of any hearing no later than 120 days after such conclusion) parties must demonstrate how they were prejudiced by the delay. See also, Lynch, § 31-301. Appeal procedure.

Holevinski v. State/Southbury Training School, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 215, 988 CRD-5-90-3 (September 12, 1991).

Remanded. CRD unable to determine from finding why interest on temporary total benefits was denied. See also, Holevinski, § 31-307, § 31-296.

Cummings v. Twin Manufacturing, Inc., 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 199, 1023 CRD-1-90-5 (August 29, 1991), aff’d, rev’d in part; further proceedings, 29 Conn. App. 249 (1992).

Claim for interest and attorney’s fees must be heard at hearing below before the CRD can review them. See also, Cummings, § 31-294d, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Imbrogno v. Stamford Hospital, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 174, 967 CRD-7-90-1 (August 2, 1991), aff’d, rev’d & remanded in part, 28 Conn. App. 113 (1992), cert. denied, 223 Conn. 920 (1992).

Amount of attorney’s fee awarded within trier’s discretion where based on unreasonable delay and/or unreasonable contest of liability. CRD affirmed fee awarded based on delay in payment of certain medical claims as no unreasonable contest was found. Appellate Court held § 31-300 allows a discretionary award of both interest and attorney’s fees or neither but does not allow an award of one and not the other. Remanded for a further award of interest. See also, Imbrogno, § 31-301. Appeal procedure, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Watson v. American Cyanamid, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 90, 911 CRD-8-89-8 (March 1, 1991).

Trial commissioner’s award of interest on unpaid payments of compensation affirmed where CRD held respondent’s contention of its obligation to not pay pursuant to § 31-299b unconvincing.

Chisham v. Culbro Tobacco, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 36, 909 CRD-1-89-8 (February 1, 1991).

Trial commissioner’s decision not issued within 120 days in accordance with § 31-300. See, Stevens v. Hartford, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 134, 831 CRD-1-89-2 (August 6, 1990), infra.

Applebee v. State/Southbury Training School, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 142, 841 CRD-5-89-4 (August 20, 1990).

See, Applebee, § 31-294f.

Stevens v. Hartford, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 134, 831 CRD-1-89-2 (August 6, 1990).

Failure to render decision within statutory time limits (120 days) does not deprive trial commissioner of jurisdiction. Further in order to vacate a decision which is proper in all other respects requires a showing of prejudice. See also, Stevens, § 31-301. Appeal procedure.

Trantolo v. Trantolo & Trantolo, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 69, 823 CRD-6-89-2 (April 17, 1990).

Attorneys’ Fees. Whether an appellant’s filing an appeal on the basis of an issue not raised at the trial level is unreasonable delay is a factual determination to be made by the trial commissioner. See also, Trantolo, § 31-278, § 31-294c & § 31-301. Appeal procedure.

Tartakovsky v. Sohmer/Pratt & Read, 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 46, 666 CRD-8-87 (August 9, 1989).

Award of interest and attorneys fees within trial commissioner’s discretion.

Hicks v. State/Dept. of Administrative Services, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 111, 429 CRD-5-85 (February 23, 1989), no error, 21 Conn. App. 464 (1990), cert. denied, 216 Conn. 804 (1990).

Commissioner’s denial of mandatory interest and attorneys’ fees valid where law requiring such awards was enacted after claimant’s date of injury. Further an award for attorneys’ fees based on unreasonable contest is a matter to be decided by trial commissioner as he is in the best position to assess the weight and credibility of the evidence supporting such claims. See also, Hicks, § 31-307, § 31-308(c), § 31-308a.

Besade v. Interstate Security Services, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 83, 593 CRD-2-87 (January 13, 1989), no error, 212 Conn. 441 (1989).

Respondents failed to demonstrate how delay in rendering trial commissioner’s decision prejudiced them.

Beauregard v. Hartford Hospital, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 149, 603 CRD-1-87 (April 21, 1989).

CRD upheld the denial of attorney’s fees where delay was not the fault or neglect of the employer, but the result of the complexity of the litigation.

Pokorny v. Getta’s Garage, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 161, 716 CRD-7-88-3 (June 2, 1989), rev’d, 22 Conn. App. 539 (1990), rev’d, 219 Conn. 439 (1991).

Award of interest and attorneys’ fees is within the discretion of the trial commissioner and will not be disturbed unless contrary to law or without evidence. Appellate Court reversed and held trial commissioner should have considered interest award under § 31-300 which permits such awards even if delay was not due to fault or neglect of the respondents. Supreme Court then reversed Appellate Court ruling. See also, Pokorny, § 31-293.

Fappiano v. Nutmeg Concrete Inc., 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 29, 652 CRD-3-87 (September 27, 1988).

Trial commissioner’s finding that delay was not due to unreasonable contest was not an abuse of discretion.

McGloin v. Gateway Industries, 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 148, 618 CRD-1-87 (July 26, 1988).

Award for attorney’s fee due to undue delay is within trial commissioner’s discretion.

Carlino v. Danbury Hospital, 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 139, 357 CRD-7-84 (July 18, 1988).

Trial commissioner’s decision to award interest from date of CRD’s decision to reverse denial of compensation, rather than from date of incapacity, is within his discretion.

Delcarmine v. Fire Prevention Service, Inc., 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 123, 311 CRD-7-84 (June 27, 1988).

Awards for interest due to undue delay are based on law at time of injury. In the instant matter the applicable law provided that awards for interest were in the trial commissioner’s discretion.

Whitney v. Lapoint Garden Center, 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 74, 467 CRD-7-86 (April 29, 1988).

Where record showed irrebuttable presumption could lie under § 31-297(b) and no payment of medicals by employer, award for attorney’s fees was correctly awarded by trial commissioner.

Bailey v. Guilford, 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 47, 464 CRD-3-86 (April 7, 1988).

Matter remanded for additional proceedings to determine if a finding of unreasonable contest was in order.

Carpentino v. Perkins Trucking Co., 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 40, 488 CRD-3-86 (April 6, 1988), no error, 18 Conn. App. 810 (1989)(per curiam).

Where trial commissioner concluded that benefits were improperly discontinued, attorney’s fees and interest must be awarded.

Miner v. Federal Paperboard Co., 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 129, 333 CRD-2-84 (December 1, 1987).

Appellant’s argument alleging delay in adjudication dismissed.

Neumann v. Southern Conn. Gas Co., 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 62, 265 CRD-4-83 (May 8, 1987).

Award for attorney’s fees dependent on finding of unreasonable contest.

Marino v. West Haven, 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 34, 240 CRD-3-83 (March 16, 1987).

Remanded for further proceedings to determine if unreasonable contest and if attorneys’ fees and interest should be awarded.

Raucci v. West Haven, 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 94, 233 CRD-3-83 (November 17, 1986).

Matter remanded for further hearings as to an award for attorney’s fees and interest where appellant should have withdrawn the appeal and made payments after Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in Bakelaar v. West Haven, 38 Conn. Sup. 359 (1982). See, Bakelaar, § 7-433c.

O’Leary v. New Britain, 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 108, 236 CRD-6-83 (December 2, 1986).

Attorney’s fees only awarded where there is an unreasonable contest.

Davis v. Dwight Building Co., 2 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 51, 129 CRD-3-82 (May 29, 1984).

Commissioner’s decision to award interest for delayed payments is discretionary but where a 20 year delay existed failure to award interest was an abuse of discretion.

Robinson v. Allied Grocers Cooperative, Inc., 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op.132, 68 CRD-1-81 (July 13, 1982), aff’d, 39 Conn. Sup. 386 (1983).

Finding of unreasonable contest is discretionary with commissioner. Dicta discussion of counsel fees.

Graf v. Genovese and Massaro, Inc., 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 129, 59 CRD-3-81 (July 13, 1982).

Remanded for further proceeding to determine what attorney’s fees and interests should be permitted where appeal approached the unreasonable.