CRB Case Annotations re: Rules of Professional Conduct

Evans v. Shelton, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 155, 3108 CRB-4-95-6 (May 2, 1997), dismissed for lack of a final judgment, A.C. 17196 (January 14, 1998).

See, Evans, § 31-301. Appeal procedure (denial of request to recuse); See also § 31-275(16), and § 31-301. Factual findings.

Costa v. United Nuclear Corp., 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 101, 2296 CRB-2-95-1 (November 20, 1996).

Claimant’s attorney filed motion to recuse trial commissioner on ground that she had filed a grievance against his partner, thus compromising her impartiality. Trial commissioner denied motion, concluding that recusal is warranted only when antipathy is alleged toward a client, not an attorney. Affirmed. Cases interpreting Canons 2 and 3(C)(1)(a) of Code of Judicial Conduct do not mandate disqualification by commissioner in these circumstances. See also, Costa, § 31-297a, § 31-315.

Cummings v. Twin Tool Manufacturing, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 225, 2008 CRB-1-94-4 (April 12, 1995), appeal dismissed, A.C. 14747 (June 29, 1995).

See, Cummings, § 31-298 (ex parte communication).

Knoblaugh v. Greenwood Health Center, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 150, 1608 CRB-1-92-12 (February 6, 1995).

Respondents should not have communicated ex parte with claimant’s surgeon without notifying claimant or her counsel; CRB frowns on behavior calculated to produce favorable medical reports by withholding relevant information from treating physician, as such conduct is tantamount to promulgation of false evidence. See R.P.C. § 3.3, § 3.4. See also, Knoblaugh, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-315, and § 31-349.