State of Connecticut Workers' Compensation Commission, John A. Mastropietro, Chairman
Home News RSS News QUICK Find Index Search E-Mail
General Information Glossary Law CRB Opinions Workers' Compensation Commission Downloadable Forms and Publications Links

Busak v. City of Stamford

CASE NO. 1562 CRB-7-92-11

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

JUNE 8, 1994

ANN BUSAK

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

CITY OF STAMFORD

EMPLOYER

and

CIRMA/FRANK B. HALL RISK

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented by Paul J. Pacifico, Esq., Law Offices of Paul J. Pacifico, 12 Avery Place, Westport, CT 06880.

The respondents were represented by James D. Moran, Esq. and Carolyn A. Signorelli, Esq., Maher & Williams, P.O. Box 269, Bridgeport, CT 06601.

This Petition for Review from the November 16, 1992 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner for the Seventh District was heard December 2, 1993 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse Frankl and Commissioners George A. Waldron and Donald H. Doyle, Jr.

OPINION

JESSE FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant challenges the trial commissioner’s dismissal of her claims for Workers’ Compensation benefits filed on September 12, 1990 and April 15, 1991, in relation to her low back condition and resulting surgeries.

The trial commissioner properly determined that the September 12, 1990 notice of claim for the January 17, 1988 injury was time-barred. See General Statutes Sec. 31-294.

The commissioner’s conclusion with respect to the subject of the April 15, 1991 notice of claim, that “[t]he Claimant has failed to meet her burden of proof that she sustained an injury to her low back arising out of and in the course of her employment under any theory, including repetitive trauma [or] a specific injury in the Spring of 1990 or a September 1, 1990 injury”; Finding and Dismissal, paragraph 32.M.; must be sustained as well. “Here, the trial commissioner apparently did not find the claimant’s version of how the injury occurred to be credible based on gaps and inconsistencies in the evidence. ‘The trier of facts determines with finality the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Miller v. Kirschner, 225 Conn. 185, 198 (1993); State v. Robinson, 213 Conn. 243, 256 (1989). This means that the commissioner was free to believe some, all or none of the claimant’s testimony [and other evidence presented by her]. State v. Sherbacow, 21 Conn. App. 474, 480, cert. denied, 216 Conn. 808 (1990). Because the conclusions drawn by the trial commissioner from the facts found did not result from an incorrect application of the law or from an inference illegally or unreasonably drawn from the subordinate facts, the commissioner’s conclusions must stand. Fair v. People’s Savings Bank, [207 Conn. 535, 539 (1988)].” Fletcher v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 182, 183, 1322 CRD-8-91-10 (1993).

We, therefore, affirm the trial commissioner and deny the appeal.

Commissioners George A. Waldron and Donald H. Doyle, Jr. concur.

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: January 29, 2016

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1994/1562crb.htm

Workers’ Compensation Commission Disclaimer, Privacy Policy and Website Accessibility

State of Connecticut Workers' Compensation Commission, John A. Mastropietro, Chairman
Home News RSS News QUICK Find Index Search E-Mail
General Information Glossary Law CRB Opinions Workers' Compensation Commission Downloadable Forms and Publications Links