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

Ocasio v. Toyotomi, USA

CASE NO. 1668 CRB-7-93-2

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

JULY 5, 1994

ORLANDO OCASIO

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

TOYOTOMI, USA

EMPLOYER

and

TOKIO MARINE/C.L.A.S.

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented by Robert C. Lubus, Jr., Esq., Grady & Riley, 86 Buckingham Street, Waterbury, CT 06710 who neither filed a brief nor appeared at oral argument except with respect to a motion to submit additional evidence which was previously considered.

The respondents were represented by Jason Dodge, Esq. and Stephen G. Ekern, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton & Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Blvd., Glastonbury, CT 06033-4412.

This Petition for Review from the January 27, 1993 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner for the Seventh District was heard March 11, 1994 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of Commissioners George A. Waldron, Angelo L. dos Santos and Nancy A. Brouillet.

OPINION

GEORGE A. WALDRON, COMMISSIONER. As noted by the trial commissioner, “[t]his case boils down to whether or not claimant was injured at work on August 14, 1992, and that becomes a matter of credibility.” Finding and Dismissal, paragraph 21. Based on his review of the conflicting evidence, the commissioner concluded that “the claimant has failed to meet his burden of proof as to having sustained an accidental injury on August 14, 1992, arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent-employer”. Finding and Dismissal, paragraph 22. We affirm the trial commissioner.1

The trial commissioner apparently did not find the claimant’s version of how the injury occurred to be credible based on inconsistencies in the evidence. “The trier of the facts determines with finality the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Miller v. Kirshner, 225 Conn. 185, 198 (1993); State v Robinson, 213 Conn. 243, 256 (1989). 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 Sayings Bank, 207 Conn. 535, 539 (1988); Fletcher v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 182, 1322 CRD-8-91-10 (1993).

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

Commissioners Angelo L. dos Santos and Nancy A. Brouillet concur.

1 On December 16, 1993, we denied the claimant’s Motion to Submit Additional Evidence dated February 4, 1993. In that motion, the claimant sought to submit additional evidence intended to challenge the credibility of certain eyewitness testimony. As that impeachment evidence was discoverable at the time of the proceedings below, the claimant failed to satisfy the requirements of Administrative Regulation Sec. 31-301-9. BACK TO TEXT

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: January 29, 2016

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1994/1668crb.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