CRB Case Annotations re: Section 31-301-4

Board explained that it has subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal from the denial of a Motion to Correct where nothing was filed within ten days of the initial decision. However, board expressed concern regarding allowing “back door” route to review of the merits, and thus held that its scope of review was necessarily limited to reviewing errors in the denial of the Motion to Correct. See, Robare, § 31-301, Appeal Procedure.

Board found no error in denial of Motion to Correct where requested findings involved the medical opinions of two physicians in which they allegedly questioned causation, where a third physician had opined with reasonable medical certainty that the claimant’s condition was caused by his employment. Additionally, where a physician opined with reasonable medical certainty that the claimant’s condition was caused by his employment, the requested finding that he admitted that there was no conclusively proven cause of the claimant’s condition (fibromyalgia) need not be granted. See, Brinson, § 31-296, 31-308(a).

Board affirmed trial commissioner’s decision in which he found that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury. The claimant argued on appeal that the trier erred by not making any findings regarding his contention that he was on a business trip in Florida when his knee injury manifested itself. Board explained that in his Motion to Correct the claimant requested a finding that he was on a business trip in Florida, and that by denying said motion the trier indicated that she was not persuaded. See Christoforo, § 31-294c; § 31-301 Appeal procedure; and § 31-301 Factual findings.

Board denied claimant’s Motion to Submit Additional Evidence where claimant did not provide reason for failing to present such evidence during the formal hearing, and where evidence described (additional medical reports) appeared to be cumulative. See, Fox-Gould, § 31-301.

Discussion regarding Motion to Correct when requested changes are based upon credibility of the evidence. See also, Gary, § 31-315.

CRB affirmed trial commissioner’s partial denial of Motion to Correct. Claimant was essentially trying to retry her case, and it was the duty of the fact-finder to consider the testimony and exhibits in the record, assess their credibility, and draw inferences and legal conclusions based on his impressions. When the trier reviews a Motion to Correct, he must evaluate the proposed changes in that same capacity. See also, Covert, § 31-294d, § 31-296 Voluntary Agreements (discontinuance of payments), § 31-301-9.

CRB denied claimant’s Motion to Dismiss one of respondents’ amended Reasons for Appeal. Whether or not an extension of time to file said reasons was sought in order for trier to rule on Motion to Correct, an appellant is entitled to amend reasons for appeal at any time, absent prejudice, under Prac. Book § 63-4(b), and denial of Motion to Correct may be assigned as a reason for appeal under § 31-301-6 and § 31-301-7. A separate appeal need not be filed from denial of Motion to Correct. Also, trier did not err by denying request to correct findings, as trier did not mischaracterize doctor’s opinion and the nature of safety information regarding chemical toxicity. See also, Costa, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Respondents argued that the trial commissioner erred in denying their Motion to Correct, which sought to add findings regarding claimant’s health subsequent to date of injury. Trier had denied this request, noting that respondents sought to add information from claimant’s deposition, which had not been admitted into evidence. Respondents argued that the deposition had been admitted into evidence, as it was entered as part of a set of documents which were reviewed by a physician along with his deposition, which was marked as an exhibit. CRB explained that it need not determine whether the deposition was entered into evidence because the respondents’ proposed correction was immaterial. It addressed the claimant’s condition subsequent to her injury, while the only issue at the formal hearing was the compensability of the injury itself. See also, Burke, § 31-275(16).

See, Davis, § 31-275(1).

See, Cramer, § 31-275(1), § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-301-9. Additional evidence.

Claimant did not request certain findings regarding increased disability or changed conditions of fact in her Motion to Correct, and did not provide specific enough information regarding requested corrections to support her claim for continued total disability. Trial commissioner affirmed. See also, Courtright, § 5-142(a), § 31-315.

Claimant did not request corrections regarding circumstances surrounding injury, so finding that injury arose out of and in the course of employment must stand, even though little discussion of subordinate facts was present in decision. See also, Baribault, § 31-278, § 31-288.

Appeal from trial commissioner’s granting of Motion to Correct, which changed the trial commissioner’s conclusion. Contrary to claimant’s contention, a trial commissioner may grant a motion to correct which changes both findings of fact and the ultimate conclusion regarding compensability. The claimant’s appeal from the granting of the motion to correct survives even though the original appeal was withdrawn following the granting of the motion to correct. See also, Buccieri, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-301. Appeal procedure.

CRB Case Annotations re: Section 31-301-4

Correction of Finding.