CASE NO. 1459 CRB-5-92-7
CASE NO. 1460 CRB-1-92-7
COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
JUNE 17, 1994
WINDSOR DRY CLEANERS
PEERLESS INSURANCE CO.
AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO.
HOME INSURANCE CO.
AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE CO.
SECOND INJURY FUND
The claimant was represented by Richard Nicoll, Esq., RFD, South Deerfield, MA 01373.
The respondents-Best Cleaners and Peerless Insurance Co., were represented by Michael Finn, Esq., and Robert Montstream, Esq., Montstream & May, 655 Winding Brook Drive, P.O. Box 1087, Glastonbury, CT 06033.
The respondents-Broadbrook Cleaners and Windsor Dry Cleaners and Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., were represented by Margaret E. Corrigan, Esq., and James L. Pomeranz, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton & Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Blvd., Glastonbury, CT 06033-4412.
The respondents-Windsor Dry Cleaners and Best Cleaners and Home Insurance Co. were represented by Karen Fritzinger, Esq., and Maureen E. Driscoll, Esq., Maher & Williams, P.O. Box 269, Bridgeport, CT 06601.
The respondents-Windsor Dry Cleaners and American Motorists Insurance Co. were represented by Tracey Cleary, Esq., and Deborah Haddaway, Esq., Law Offices of Michael Brodinski, 127 Washington Ave., P.O. Box 35, North Haven, CT 06473, who neither filed a brief nor appeared at oral argument.
The Second Injury Fund was represented by Michael Belzer, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06141-0120.
These Petitions for Review from the July 8, 1992 Finding and Award and the July 24, 1992 Amended Finding and Award of the Fifth District Commissioner and from the July 9, 1992 Finding and Award and the July 14,1992 Corrected Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the First District was heard March 11, 1994 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of Commissioners George A. Waldron, Nancy A. Brouillet and Michael S. Miles.
GEORGE A. WALDRON, COMMISSIONER. This case returns to us after proceedings on remand. Previously, we upheld the commissioner’s determination that this case qualifies medically for transfer to the Second Injury Fund pursuant to General Statutes Sec. 31-349. We remanded the case to the Commissioner, however, to provide subordinate facts which substantiate the amount ($43,005.40) found to be due the claimant and to indicate the exact date of transfer of liability to the Second Injury Fund. See Williams v. Best Cleaners, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 168, 843 CRD-1-89-3 (1990) (Williams I).
In the present appeals, the Second Injury Fund does not challenge the Commissioner’s resolution of the issues to be decided on remand. Rather, the Second Injury Fund again seeks our review of the issue of whether this claim qualifies medically for a Sec. 31-349 transfer. We decline this invitation to reconsider our prior disposition of this issue. See Mingrone v. Burndy Corp., 1403 CRB-7-92-3 (decided January 13, 1994). Since the sole issue raised by the appellant is one which we previously resolved adversely to the appellant and since there has been no intervening judicial decision suggesting that our prior determination was incorrect, the relief sought by the appellant will necessarily come, if at all, only by way of appeal to the Appellate Court. See General Statutes Sec. 31-301b.
We, therefore, affirm the trial Commissioner and deny the appeals.
Commissioners Nancy A. Brouillet and Michael S. Miles concur.