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

Landry v. Transtar, Inc.

CASE NO. 1971 CRB-2-94-2

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

DECEMBER 28, 1994

JOSEPH LANDRY

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

TRANSTAR, INC.

EMPLOYER

SELF-INSURED

and

ALEXSIS, INC.

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented by Kathleen Coleman, Esq., Coleman Horgan, 2 Captain’s Walk, P. O. Box 889, New London, CT 06320.

The respondents were represented at the trial level by Michael Tierney, Esq., Cotter, Cotter & Sohon, P. C., P. O. Box 5660, Bridgeport, CT 06610. On appeal, the respondents were represented by S. Dave Vatti, Esq., Zeldes, Needle & Cooper, P.C., 1000 Lafayette Blvd., P. O. Box 1740, Bridgeport, CT 06601.

This Petition for Review from the February 3, 1994 Finding of Facts and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Second District was heard October 7, 1994 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Michael S. Miles and Linda Blenner Johnson.

OPINION

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant, a truck driver, injured his neck and shoulder while unloading a delivery on April 28, 1992. The commissioner ruled on the extent of the disability relying on a report by Dr. Zondag, a Wisconsin medical practitioner from whom the claimant sought medical advice while performing temporary light duty work in Wisconsin. Claimant moved for a Motion to Quash the deposition of Dr. Zondag arguing that Dr. Zondag is not licensed nor authorized to practice in Connecticut and therefore the commissioner should instead only rely on the report of Dr. Masterson, a local practitioner. The commissioner denied the claimant’s motion. The commissioner’s ruling was made off the record. The commissioner never placed the ruling on the record. Consequently, the record was incomplete.

On appeal, the claimant seeks to reargue the Motion to Quash before the trier in order to formulate a record. We remand for argument as to the Motion to Quash only.1 Without a record or transcript of evidence of the proceedings below, we are powerless to perform any meaningful review. Palmer v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 150, 1079 CRD-8-90-7 (1991). In this case the record does not allow for an adequate appellate review on the Motion to Quash and therefore we remand for reargument on that motion in order to produce a complete record.

Therefore, the matter is remanded for further proceedings on the Motion to Quash only.

Commissioners Michael S. Miles and Linda Blenner Johnson concur.

1 The claimant-appellant also filed a Motion to Submit Additional Evidence. We believe that our ruling in which we remand the instant matter for further proceedings makes a ruling on claimant’s Motion to Submit Additional Evidence unnecessary. BACK TO TEXT

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: October 6, 2004

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1994/1971crb.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