CASE NO. 2179 CRB-4-94-10
COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
MAY 10, 1995
ACME UNITED CORPORATION
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
The claimant was represented by Nancy A. DeRose, Esq., Gaston & Ruane, 350 Fairfield Ave., Bridgeport, CT 06604.
The respondents were represented by James Moran, Esq., Maher & Williams, P.O. Box 550, Fairfield, CT 06430-0550.
This Motion to Submit Additional Evidence, which was filed in conjunction with the Petition for Review from the September 30, 1994 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner for the Fourth District, was heard March 24, 1995 before a Compensation Review Board Panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Roberta Smith D’Oyen and Amado J. Vargas.
JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has filed a Motion to Submit Additional Evidence in conjunction with an appeal from the decision of the trial commissioner. The trial commissioner found that the claimant failed to sustain his burden of proof that he suffered any injuries to his knee, back, or neck which were causally related to a compensable chemical burn injury.
In his motion to submit additional evidence, the claimant seeks to present live testimony from a treating physician, Dr. Carmine Calabrese, to establish that the claimant complained of neck, back and knee discomfort. The claimant contends that he did not provide live testimony from Dr. Calabrese at the formal hearing because he submitted medical reports from Dr. Calabrese regarding these injuries.
It is the claimant’s burden to prove that his alleged injuries are causally related to his compensable injury. Metall v. Aluminum Co. of America, 154 Conn. 48, 51 (1966). Therefore, it is also the claimant’s burden to recognize and meet any inconsistencies in the evidence at the formal hearing, whether or not those discrepancies seemed significant to the claimant at the time of the hearing. Peters v. Corporate Air, Inc., 1679 CRB-5-93-3 (March 14, 1994); Lesczynski v. New Britain Memorial Hospital, 10 Conn. Workers Comp. Rev. Op. 205, 208-9, 1289 CRD-6-91-9 (Dec. 2, 1992). Moreover, a motion to submit additional evidence may not properly be used to alter a party’s evidentiary decisions based on trial tactics or lack of diligence regarding the presentation of evidence at a formal hearing. Lesczynski, supra; Lange v. J & B Excavating & Paving, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 42, 1249 CRD-3-91-6 (March 18, 1993).
In the instant case, at the formal hearing the claimant chose to present medical reports as evidence to support the alleged injuries to his neck, back and knee. We conclude that the claimant has failed to show good reason for his failure to present live testimony on this issue at the formal hearing before the commissioner. See Lesczynski, supra. Moreover, the claimant offers no indication that the proffered evidence was really new or that it was undiscoverable with due diligence at the time of the original hearings. Id., see also Murdock v. Squires, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 64, 66, 550 CRD-7-87 (Dec. 1, 1988). We conclude that the claimant has failed to satisfy the requirements of Conn. Agencies Reg. § 31-301-9.
We, therefore, deny the claimant’s Motion to Submit Additional Evidence.
Commissioners Roberta Smith D’Oyen and Amado J. Vargas concur.