CRB Case Annotations re: Section 31-275(1)

Trial commissioner’s conclusion that waitress’ back injury resulted from lifing a box of ketchup affirmed by CRB. Trier’s conclusion rested on weight and credibility accorded to witnesses’ testimony. See Morneault § 31-301 Factual Findings.

Board affirmed trier’s decision that claimant’s estate unable to meet the minimum burden of proof to show that work stress, or any other work factors, caused the decedent’s myocardial infarction which occurred at work. Board reviewed standard of causation in heart attack cases, which requires that work factors constitute a substantial cause.

The board affirmed the trier’s conclusion that the decedent’s slip and fall injury which occurred on her walkway, arose out of and in the course of her employment as she was responding to an emergency call from the respondent employer. The respondents contended that even if the injury occurred under an exception to the “coming and going” rule, it was nevertheless not compensable, as the decedent had not yet entered the public highway but was still on property (her walkway) owned and maintained by herself. It was within the discretion of the trier to conclude that the decedent had been alerted by the store alarm and was responding to an emergency. The board looked to Larson’s and other states’ cases and concluded that under the emergency call exception to the “coming and going” rule, there is portal-to-portal coverage. Additionally, the board determined that Public Act 95-262 regarding preliminary acts at the claimant’s place of abode did not apply, as that legislation was enacted in response to the growing number of home offices, and was not intended to affect the exceptions to the “coming and going” rule.

Board affirmed trier’s determination that claimant’s alleged Lyme disease was not caused by her employment, as the claimant was not aware of any tick bite which occurred while at work, and the medical evidence was conflicting. The medical evidence was also conflicting as to whether the claimant actually had Lyme disease. See, Green, § 31-298.

Claimant’s disability due to post-traumatic stress disorder was not caused by alcohol abuse or illegal drug use; rather, symptoms of extreme anxiety led claimant to use such substances, and there was no evidence that such actions contributed to claimant’s psychological state. See, Nunes, § 31-275(16), § 31-301. Factual findings.

Claimant fractured knee in a motor vehicle accident while driving to a construction job site to which he was assigned. Claimant contended that the accident occurred while he was en route to the job site after having returned home to pick up a beeper which he had forgotten on his initial departure from home to his job site. Claimant claimed that that retrieval of the beeper an act in furtherance of his employment and that the employer furnished transportation. Commissioner concluded that employer did not furnish transportation and the retrieval of the beeper was not an act in furtherance of the employer’s business. CRB affirmed trier and further held that Ballester v. K.&D. Auto Body Inc., 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 35, 528 CRB-3-86 (April 6, 1988) was not dispositive of this matter.

Trier found claimant’s injuries compensable where he was hit by a car during his lunch break while crossing a public street en route from the hospital to his employer-maintained parking garage. Facts were stipulated by parties, so CRB applied less deferential standard of review. CRB independently determined that claimant, who was walking to the parking garage in order to give a bracket to a repairman who was fixing his car window, was within the course of his employment when he was injured. Public street was constructively considered part of employer premises for purposes of workers’ compensation issue, as parking lot was part of employer premises under prior caselaw, and claimant had to cross street to get to parking lot. Failure to use crosswalk did not per se place him in an unreasonable location. As per Mazzone v. Connecticut Transit Co., 240 Conn. 788 (1992), claimant’s presence on employer premises on lunch break kept him within course of employment. Act of delivering part to repairman who was fixing car window was incidental to employment, particularly where claimant used his car for work-related purposes on a daily basis.

Decedent’s automobile accident arose out of and in course of employment even though he was apparently on pace to miss scheduled meeting at employer’s restaurant. Decedent had driven 10-12 hours to reach meeting, which employer wanted him to attend; no other purpose for decedent’s trip was alleged. He was driving company car, and travel was significant component of his job. See, Owen, § 31-275(9), § 31-278.

Home health care worker was injured while traveling from her apartment building, where she had been caring for an Atrium Homecare patient, to the home of an NRS patient. NRS normally reimbursed claimant for travel between homes of NRS patients, but not from her own home to that of her first daily patient. CRB reversed trier’s conclusions that claimant’s work required her to use public highways, and that her bus trip was to the benefit of employer, thereby circumventing “coming and going” exception. “Benefit” test by itself cannot justify finding of compensability in standard “coming and going” case. Exception for jobs that require travel on roadways generally applies to occupations that heavily involve such travel. Home health care workers who travel between clients’ homes cannot invoke this as an exception to “coming and going” rule. Also, trier found that claimant’s home was tantamount to satellite office of NRS. CRB found insufficient evidence in record to support this finding, analyzed criteria needed to establish home workplace, and warned against the subtle, case-by-case abrogation of “coming and going” rule through expansion of boundaries of workplace. Case remanded for further findings regarding degree of claimant’s work activities at home, and possible interruption of NRS employment by claimant’s undertaking of duties for Atrium on morning of accident. See, Labadie, § 31-301. Factual findings.

CRB declined to reconsider issues discussed in Davis, 3822 CRB-2-98-5 (Aug. 17, 1999), infra; also cited at Davis, § 31-301-4, where CRB had concluded that entire UConn campus constituted employer’s premises as matter of law. Trier faithfully adhered to remand instructions in finding credible claimant’s testimony regarding employer’s knowledge and acquiescence to lunchtime practice of walking to on-campus fast-food restaurant, and ruling that injury thereby occurred in course of employment. Trier properly ruled that state’s argument regarding claimant’s alleged jaywalking had no merit. Evidence showed that university created walkway in median for pedestrians to use in crossing street, and no proof was adduced that school or local police force considered it illegal or dangerous to cross Fairfield Road at spot where claimant fell.

Respondent sought re-consideration and reversal of the Supreme Court’s holding in Cashman v. McTernan School, 130 Conn. 401 (1943). In Cashman the court read the language in now codified at § 31-275(1)(D) so as to permit apportionment for pre-existing occupational disease, although plain language of statute provides for apportionment for pre-existing disease. CRB held that on the basis of stare decisis and the existence of binding case law it was powerless to hold as the respondent argued. Additionally the CRB denied the Respondent’s Motion to Reserve. See, Criscio, § 31-324.

See, Smith, § 31-275(16).

CRB affirmed trial commissioner’s conclusion that decedent remained in the course of his employment as a supervisor and physical education instructor for the Center while officiating basketball games that were being held at the Center during the evening. Though all referees were paid $15 per game, decedent retained additional duties involving supervision of Center that were not applicable to outside referees. Employer benefit found.

CRB affirmed trier’s determination that decedent’s myocardial infarction was not compensable where neither employment stress nor his activities during an employer-sponsored golf outing were substantial causes of his injury. Issue was one of fact, and was supported by the medical evidence. See also, Kay, § 31-275(16), § 31-300.

The board affirmed the trial commissioner’s conclusion that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury. None of the physicians seen by the claimant wrote a report that, within a reasonable degree of medical probability, connected her right arm and shoulder condition to the incident that occurred on February 20, 1996.

Claimant argued on appeal that the undisputed medical evidence indicated that he sustained injuries as a result of an automobile accident. Although the trial commissioner determined that an accident occurred, he nevertheless concluded that the claimant did not sustain any injuries therefrom. CRB affirmed the trier’s decision, explaining that the trier may reject medical evidence as unworthy of belief or find that the opinion was based on subordinate facts that were not proven. Because it was the claimant’s burden to prove a compensable injury, and he did not do so, it is of no moment that the respondents did not present any medical evidence.

See, Simmons, § 31-300, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Claimant failed to persuade trial commissioner that doctrine of collateral estoppel should be invoked to prevent respondents from contesting causal connection between her late husband’s death due to lung cancer and asbestos exposure at his workplace. CRB affirmed. Though claimant prevailed on that issue in Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act proceedings, her burden of proof there was eased due to the presumption of compensability in 33 U.S.C. § 920. No similar advantage is given to a claimant by § 31-275(1). CRB could not tell how much influence said “benefit of the doubt” had on administrative law judge’s findings, and upheld trier’s decision to require a full hearing on the merits. Supreme Court reversed, holding that issue of causal relationship between decedent’s death and his employment was fully litigated, actually decided, and necessarily determined in the federal longshore action; contrary to respondents’ claim, the ALJ there imposed on claimant the burden to prove causal connection by a preponderance of the evidence, without the aid of any presumption allegedly available under the federal act. Also cited at Lafayette, § 31-298.

CRB affirmed trial commissioner’s determination that claimant’s psychiatric condition was compensable, as it was aggravated by a compensable heart condition. CRB explained law making an employer liable for the sequelae of a compensable injury. In an earlier decision, Gartrell v. Dept. of Correction, 258 Conn. 137 (2001), the Supreme Court remanded the case in order to limit the compensation for the psychiatric condition to that proportion of the disability due to the aggravation of the pre-existing disease that reasonably may be attributable to the work-related injury, as required under § 31-275(1)(D). That decision was superseded on January 15, 2002, and the CRB was affirmed. See also, Gartrell, § 31-275(16).

Board affirmed trial commissioner’s conclusion that claimant’s injury was compensable. Claimant tripped while walking to her car, which was parked on premises contiguous to Stop & Shop supermarket where claimant worked, in a common parking lot used by other retailers. Under Stop & Shop’s lease, the landlord maintained the parking lots as common areas for all tenants. Trier concluded that the area where claimant parked was the customary parking place for claimant, other employees, and management, that this was known to the employer, and was an incidental part of claimant’s employment. Moreover, commissioner found that employer benefited by claimant’s practice of parking in this area because her car did not then take up space in front of the store where customers would park.

Board affirmed trial commissioner’s determination that claimant’s psychiatric condition was caused by a compensable train accident. Trial commissioner had discretion to rely on claimant’s treating psychiatrist regarding the issue of causation, even though the trier found the psychiatrist’s treatment of the claimant to be unreasonable. See also, Student, § 31-294d, § 31-298, § 31-308(c).

CRB affirmed trial commissioner’s conclusion that decedent’s fatal injury arose out of and during the course of his employment. Decedent was fatally injured while he was using the employer’s forklift to help a neighboring business. The accident occurred during the period of the decedent’s employment in an area which was under the care, custody and control of respondent employer. Although trier did not find that employer granted decedent explicit permission to use the forklift, the trier was entitled to infer that decedent had a right to use the forklift to help the neighboring business, or that he had done so with the implied permission or acquiescence of the employer. Prior decision in Bogrette, 3538 CRB-8-97-2 (July 22, 1998), infra.

Board affirmed trial commissioner’s determination that claimant’s injury was compensable, where claimant was injured as a result of a hepatitis B vaccination performed during a post-offer, pre-employment physical examination. The board noted that the offer of a hepatitis B vaccination was required by OSHA regulation, and that the employer, a hospital, would benefit by having its employees inoculated against communicable diseases.

Claimant was struck by an automobile while driving lawn equipment from a trailer to be stored in a yard at a work site. CRB affirmed trial commissioner’s determination that this injury occurred in the course of claimant’s employment. It was not necessary for the trier to determine the exact instructions given to the claimant, because the trier found that he acted with the reasonable belief that he was protecting his employer’s property by moving it off the trailer into the yard. See also, Riebe, § 31-288.

CRB affirmed trial commissioner’s conclusion that claimant sustained a compensable injury when he fell in the employer’s parking lot at the end of his shift while running to his car to avoid a fellow employee. The trial commissioner found that the claimant’s conduct constituted a minor and inconsequential deviation, and did not find it to be horseplay, as argued by the employer.

CRB affirmed trial commissioner’s holding that claimant, a young man from Holland who was living on-premises at a summer camp in Hebron while working as a camp counselor, suffered a compensable injury. The claimant felt ill at a time when, though arguably not yet on duty, he was required to be on the premises of the campground. The camp director drove him to the emergency room; on the way back, they were involved in a serious automobile accident. CRB ruled that the trier reasonably concluded that the claimant’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. Camp Hemlocks accepted responsibility for providing medical care for employees, and absence of on-premises medical personnel required director to take claimant to hospital.

CRB affirmed trial commissioner’s decision that claimant’s heart condition requiring surgical procedures in 1993 and 1994 was a direct result of the claimant’s earlier accepted heart condition. Additionally, board affirmed conclusion that avascular necrosis in claimant’s hips was compensable because it was caused by steroids needed after the compensable heart surgery. Panel held that respondent was seeking to retry the facts of its case by arguing that the claimant’s heart condition subsequent to 1992 was not caused by his prior heart attack, but rather was caused by his personal lifestyle. See also, Valentine, § 31-308(b).

CRB affirmed trier’s decision that claimant’s slip and fall at a Route 95 McDonald’s rest area occurred in the course of his employment. The claimant had made arrangements to have his car dropped and serviced while he was en route to a meeting. Due to wintry weather, the meeting was cancelled after the claimant arrived at the dealership to drop off his car. Claimant began return trip to his place of employment, stopping at a rest area to telephone for alternate route directions as the main thoroughfare was highly congested. Trial commissioner concluded that the claimant was doing something incidental to his employment at the time of the injury.

Claimant injured on unpaid lunch break while walking (as she often did) from Whetten building on UConn campus to Jonathan’s restaurant, also on UConn campus. Trier found that injury did not arise in course of employment, because claimant was not on employer’s premises at time of injury, and there was no risk incidental to her employment that led to this injury. CRB reversed, holding that entire UConn campus constituted employer’s premises as a matter of law, and remanded case for findings concerning whether or not employer approved or acquiesced to claimant’s lunchtime walks across campus to Jonathan’s restaurant. Mazzone v. Connecticut Transit Co., 240 Conn. 788 (1997), held to be controlling. (Frankl, C., dissenting) This case more closely resembles Spatafore v. Yale University, 239 Conn. 408 (1996), and Renckowski v. Yale University, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 48, 1292 CRD-3-91-9 (March 18, 1993) than it does Mazzone, and was properly ruled noncompensable. Injury did not occur on employer’s premises under facts of this case. Also cited at Davis, § 31-301-4. Correction of finding.

CRB affirmed trial commissioner’s conclusion that claimant’s injury, which was suffered during his trip to work, did not occur during the course of his employment. Trial commissioner specifically found that the claimant was not a “policeman” as that term is used in § 31-275(1)(A). The determination of whether the claimant was a “policeman” pursuant to § 31-275(1)(A) was a factual determination for the trial commissioner, which the CRB did not disturb, as it was fully supported by the findings.

CRB affirmed trial commissioner’s decision that claimant’s motorcycle accident, which occurred on his trip from his home to the job site, did not occur in the course of his employment. Claimant contended that he was paid for his travel time. CRB explained that employer had no control over claimant’s movements, and did not affect the hazards of the claimant’s trip from his home to the job site. As none of the four exceptions to the “coming and going” rule applied in the instant case, the trier’s decision was affirmed.

CRB reversed trial commissioner’s conclusion that claimant’s injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. Because the employer required its employees to use the coat rack in a certain room, and the claimant’s injury occurred while hanging her coat immediately prior to the start of her work day, the CRB concluded as a matter of law that the injury arose out of and in the course of her employment.

CRB affirmed trial commissioner’s finding that claimant’s injury arose out of and in course of her employment. Injury occurred while claimant was smoking a cigarette in a designated smoking area outside a Coast Guard dormitory building. Her employer was the food service subcontractor for the residence hall. CRB ruled that trial commissioner reasonably found that injury occurred on employer’s premises, adopting the definition of “premises” discussed in Larson’s treatise. Smoking is “personal comfort” activity incident to employment, and employer essentially directed the claimant to smoke in that area, as the Coast Guard banned smoking in the building.

Trial commissioner found that decedent’s attendance at insurance seminar was for personal rather than business reasons, and ruled that fatal car accident that occurred while decedent was driving home from that seminar was not a compensable injury that occurred within the scope of his law practice. CRB affirmed. As the trier of fact, the commissioner was entitled to determine that the evidence supported findings contrary to the testimony of the claimant and a former associate of the decedent. CRB also denied Motion to Submit Additional Evidence, as the claimant sought to introduce testimony of two witnesses who could have been summoned for the formal hearing. However, trier failed to address the applicability of the “dual purpose” doctrine, and did not make findings as to whether the decedent was returning home for work reasons (he had an office there) or personal reasons when he was killed. Case may fall within exception of Dombach v. Olkon Corp., 163 Conn. 216 (1972). Remanded. See also, Cramer, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-301-4. Motions to correct, § 31-301-9. Additional evidence.

CRB affirmed trial commissioner’s dismissal of claim where claimant was injured chopping wood during his lunch break on employer’s premises. Claimant’s woodcutting was permitted by employer, but was part of a separate business endeavor with which he was involved. Not an “activity” within meaning of the discussion in McNamara v. Hamden, 176 Conn. 547 (1979), concerning activities incidental to employment.

The CRB affirmed the trial commissioner’s decision that the claimant’s fall from a ladder after being pushed by a co-worker did not arise out of his employment. The record supported the trial commissioner’s determination that the assault upon the claimant was for reasons personal to the assailant and the claimant, and was unconnected with the claimant’s employment.

Claimant sustained fatal injury when forklift rolled over while he was helping a neighboring business. Trial commissioner found that the claimant was in the course of his employment, and that helping promote good will between businesses was a benefit to the employer. CRB remanded matter to the trial commissioner to determine whether claimant was authorized to drive forklift to help the neighboring business. Later decision in Bogrette, 4011 CRB-8-99-3 (February 9, 2000), supra.

Footnote briefly discusses respondents’ argument that claimant, a secretary, acted outside scope of her employment in preventing injury to elderly hospital patient. See also, Roche, § 31-294c, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Claimant’s mental stress claim was not compensable where it was caused by the closing of the correctional facility and his resultant impending transfer. The cause of the claimant’s injury was not conduct regularly engaged in as an incident to the claimant’s employment.

Commissioner found that disc herniation suffered while claimant was lifting a bag of light trash in his garage was caused by the effects of three compensable back injuries that occurred a few years earlier. CRB affirmed. Doctor’s opinion supported this finding explicitly, and “trivial incidents” need not be deemed the legal cause of injuries. See also, D’Onofrio, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Trial commissioner’s finding that claimant’s injury was compensable affirmed by CRB. Accident occurred while employee, with permission of employer, was driving from her home in a company van to the school where she had to pick up students. Use of company vehicle with permission of employer affords exception to general rule that injuries occurring while traveling to or from work are not compensable.

Claimant was injured while driving to a doctor’s appointment after running two work-related errands. Trial commissioner found injury not compensable, as trip to doctor’s office was personal without benefit to employer, and he did not believe she intended to return to work that day. CRB affirmed. Dombach v. Olkon Corp., 163 Conn. 216 (1972), is distinguishable, because claimant there got into a car accident at a point en route to both the business and personal locations associated with his trip. Here, the work portion of the trip was completed, and the claimant would not have been where she was if she had not been conducting a personal errand. Other exceptions also not applicable.

CRB affirmed trial commissioner’s determination that claimant’s accident, which occurred on his way home after his last assignment, arose out of and in the course of his employment. The employer had provided the claimant with a company vehicle for the joint benefit of claimant and employer, and therefore the use of the vehicle was incidental to the employment. No evidence that claimant deviated from approved usage of vehicle.

CRB affirmed the trial commissioner’s conclusion that the claimant’s injury did not occur in the course of his employment. The claimant’s injury occurred on a Sunday, a day he was not scheduled to work, at a park which was not owned or controlled by the employer. Although the employer encouraged the claimant to learn to climb trees, the trial commissioner did not find that the claimant’s act of rappelling down a ninety-foot rock ledge was done with the employer’s knowledge or consent.

CRB affirmed the trial commissioner’s determination that the claimant’s injury was compensable and was not the result of horseplay. Specifically, the trial commissioner found that the claimant was performing her job duties on a production line when her co-worker hit her knee with a hammer; that the claimant did not provoke the co-worker; and that there were no arguments between the claimant and the co-worker which preceded the incident.

See, Pothier, § 31-275(16), see also reference in § 31-301. Factual findings.

Kolomiets v. Syncor International Corp., 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 234, 3251 CRB-7-96-1 (June 23, 1997), rev’d, 51 Conn. App. 523 (1999), aff’d, 252 Conn. 261 (2000).

Claimant, a driver who delivered pharmaceutical products, was involved in a car accident while returning to his home to pick up his driver’s license after making a delivery. Pursuant to its license to transport radioactive materials, Syncor maintains a drivers’ manual prescribing written directions as to the manner in which deliveries are made, including routes that should be followed to various facilities. The trier found that the claimant believed he might be assigned to more deliveries that day, and was acting in the best interest of both himself and Syncor in retrieving his license. He concluded that the claimant’s deviation was not so unreasonable as to preclude him from collecting benefits for his accident. The CRB reversed on appeal, as none of the three exceptions to the “coming and going” rule discussed in Dombach v. Olkon Corporation, 163 Conn. 216 (1972) specifically apply to this case. When he had his accident, the claimant was not “on call,” he was not traveling pursuant to express employment duties, and Syncor did not approve and have knowledge of his deviation from his work routine beforehand. Legally, none of those exceptions can apply to these facts. (Wilson, C., dissenting) This case is legally identical to Kish v. Nursing and Home Care, 3068 CRB-2-95-6 (November 12, 1996), aff’d, 47 Conn. App. 620 (1998), aff’d, 248 Conn. 379 (1999) and should not be reversed. Appellate Court reversed CRB decision, stating that the commissioner’s decision had an adequate foundation in the facts, and that the CRB misapplied the law by making employer consent to minor deviations on “joint benefit” trips a prerequisite to compensability. See also, Kolomiets, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Richard v. Olsten Temporary Services, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 204, 3250 CRB-7-96-1 (May 22, 1997), aff’d, 47 Conn. App. 939 (1998)(per curiam), cert. denied, 244 Conn. 925 (1998).

CRB affirmed trial commissioner’s determination that the claimant’s motorcycle accident did not arise out of or during the course of his employment. The trial commissioner found that the claimant was on an unpaid lunch break at the time of the injury and thus was not within the period of his employment. In addition, the trial commissioner found that accident occurred on a private road which was not part of the employer’s premises.

Claimant was injured while picking up his toolbox from a loading dock on the business premises immediately after being fired by his employer. Trier found this act was within the course of his employment, and ruled injury compensable. Held: injury occurred after employment contract was terminated, and legislative policy favoring narrower construction of scope of employment period is evident from recent legislative amendment to definition of personal injury. Trial commissioner reversed. (Vargas, C., dissenting) This is a physical injury, not an emotional injury, and is not governed by Fulco v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 27 Conn. App. 800 (1992). Trier reasonably found that retrieval of toolbox while leaving premises was within period of employment. Reversed by Supreme Court, which held that the claimant’s period of employment did not end abruptly at the instant of discharge, and that he was in the course of his employment when he was injured. Moreover, as keeping personal tools at the work site was a benefit to both the claimant and the employer, and the claimant was directed by the employer to retrieve his tools, the retrieval of the tools was incidental to his employment.

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

No automatic separation between repetitive trauma and occupational disease. Claimant’s asthma could have satisfied either or both definitions, depending on whether her asthma fell within the legal definition of those injuries. Trier did not improperly “fuse” the two definitions. See also, Evans, § 31-301. Appeal procedure, § 31-301. Factual findings, notes on Rules of Professional Conduct.

Discusses stress-related heart attack claim. See also, Benlock, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Trier dismissed claim of claimant firefighter who suffered disabling head injuries when he fell in his driveway. He had been given a ride to an auto repair garage after his work shift ended, where he picked up his car. He was injured after driving the car home and stepping out onto the icy driveway. Commissioner ruled injury did not occur “in the course of a direct return from the place of duty to the place of abode.” Affirmed; statutory exception to “coming and going” rule for firefighters and police officers does not encompass every departure during the trip to and from work. Trier is entitled to decide whether a diversion is significant enough to take claimant outside the statute based on the nature of the intervening events and the route traveled.

CRB affirmed the trial commissioner’s conclusion that the claimant failed to sustain her burden of proof that she suffered any injuries that were causally related to her employment. Record, including report by IME, supported trial commissioner’s determination. It was within the discretion of the trial commissioner, as the trier of fact, to accord greater weight to the opinion of the IME. See also, Fusco, § 31-301. Appeal procedure.

During arbitration hearing between decedent’s union and respondent board of education, decedent collapsed and died from heart attack. Commissioner found causal link between stress of hearing and heart attack, and awarded benefits. Respondent argued on appeal that decedent attended hearing as union representative and for his personal benefit, and that he was not acting in scope of employment when stricken. CRB affirmed award. Arbitration hearing was part of negotiations between employer and union, rather than a members-only union meeting, and decedent was allowed to attend during paid employment hours. Commissioner’s findings were sufficient to support conclusion that heart attack was work-related. Subsequent decision in Masko, 4076 CRB-8-99-7 (July 11, 2000), aff’d, 67 Conn. App. 276 (2001), § 31-349.

CRB affirmed the trial commissioner’s conclusion that the decedent was not in the scope of his employment or doing something incidental thereto when he was killed in a motor vehicle accident. The trial commissioner’s conclusion was a factual determination that was dependent upon the weight and credibility of the evidence.

CRB affirmed the trial commissioner’s conclusion that the claimant’s injury, which occurred while he was shoveling snow, arose out of and in the course of his employment. The employer contended that it did not expressly ask the claimant to shovel said snow. Section 31-275(1) definition of injury includes an injury which occurs “while engaged elsewhere upon the employer’s business or affairs by the direction, express or implied, of the employer . . . .” (emphasis added).

Deoliveira v. Ross & Roberts, Inc., 3033 CRB-4-95-4 (December 13, 1996), aff’d, 47 Conn. App. 919 (1997)(per curiam), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 (1998).

Claimant suffered a compensable back injury, which was unreasonably contested by respondent. However, commissioner denied compensation for claimant’s emotional and psychological problems allegedly stemming from the delays in resolving his claim. Affirmed. In order for an injury to be work-related, employment must be a proximate cause of the injury. Although CRB is opposed to an employer’s use of dilatory tactics in contesting claim, the conduct that led to the claimant’s psychological distress was not a direct result of his back injury. Human actions intervened. Thus, the compensable back injury was not legally a substantial factor in causing the claimant’s psychological problems. CRB also noted that § 31-300 prescribes a remedy for unreasonable contest by an employer or insurer, and that it would be inappropriate to infer that an alternative remedy is also available in cases of unusual detrimental effects. See also, Deoliveira, § 31-300.

The trial commissioner concluded that the claimant’s injury, which occurred at the end of her work day when she reached for her pocketbook, arose out of and in the course of her employment. In support of its appeal, the employer contends that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of the claimant’s employment as it occurred during the act of reaching for her pocketbook, a personal belonging, which was not incidental to her job duties. CRB agreed with respondents’ argument and reversed the trial commissioner. (Frankl, C., dissenting) (trial commissioner’s decision as to whether the claimant’s conduct was incidental to her job duties was an issue of fact, and should be affirmed).

Kish v. Nursing and Home Care, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 83, 3068 CRB-2-95-6 (November 12, 1996), aff’d, 47 Conn. App. 620 (1998), aff’d, 248 Conn. 379 (1999).

Claimant, a home health care specialist, was en route to pick up a commode for a patient when she saw a postal vehicle and pulled over to the side of the road to mail a greeting card to a friend. While crossing the street, she was struck by an oncoming car. Commissioner found that, despite unwritten agency policy against picking up items for patients, the claimant was acting in the course of her employment in getting the commode, and that her momentary diversion to mail the card did not remove her from acting in the course of her employment. CRB affirmed; Motion to Correct was properly denied, and claimant’s actions in picking up commode did not amount to willful misconduct despite employer policy. Mailing of letter was a deviation from employment duties, but trial commissioner reasonably found that it was inconsequential. (Waldron, C., dissenting) (actions in mailing letter were primary cause of accident, and were unrelated to claimant’s employment).

Mazzone v. Connecticut Transit, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 383, 2246 CRB-3-94-12 (August 6, 1996), rev’d and remanded, 240 Conn. 788 (1997).

The CRB affirmed the trial commissioner’s conclusion that the claimant’s injury which occurred while he was eating lunch on an off-duty bus parked on the employer’s premises did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The employer provided a lunch room for employees to eat their lunches. The claimant was not doing anything while on his lunch break in furtherance of the employer’s business or incidental to it. Supreme Court reversed CRB and held claimant had satisfied the first and third parts of the “in the course of employment” test. See, McNamara v. Hamden, 176 Conn. 547 (1979) and Spatafore v. Yale University, 239 Conn. 408 (1996). A lunchtime injury sustained on the employer’s premises may be said to have occurred in the course of employment and eating lunch, a necessary element to an employee’s health and comfort, is incidental to employment. Remanded for further articulation by trial commissioner with respect to whether claimant, at the time of his injury, was at a place where he reasonably might have been.

Prescott v. Echlin, Inc., 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 339, 2242 CRB-3-94-12 (June 25, 1996), appeal dismissed, A.C. 16150 (February 5, 1997).

Claimant bears burden of proving causal relation of injury to employment; commissioner’s decision that claimant did not establish injury by sufficient evidence affirmed. Room for doubt certainly existed, as claimant’s case was based largely on her own testimony. See also, Prescott, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 191, 2029 CRB-3-94-4 (July 13, 1995).

The claimant, a mental retardation worker, injured her ankle on the driveway of a client’s home which she had been visiting as part of her job duties. The CRB found the commissioner’s conclusion that the claimant’s injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment to be amply supported by the record, including the trial commissioner’s finding that the claimant had completed her work assignment for the day prior to her injury; the finding that she was not reimbursed for travel expenses; and the trial commissioner’s determination that the evidence did not support a finding that the driveway was under the control of the employer.

To establish a stress-related heart claim, a claimant must prove that his employment was a substantial factor in causing his condition by a reasonable medical probability. Here, trial commissioner was not required to credit testimony of physician linking work stress to myocardial infarction. Dismissal affirmed.

Claimant’s flag football injury found compensable by trial commissioner. Affirmed; evidence existed to support conclusion that employer derived benefit from sponsorship of team in the form of advertising and an employee morale boost. (Injury occurred before 1993 amendment took effect.) (Tracy, C., dissenting) (no concrete evidence of benefit from flag football).

Hanzlik v. James Freccia Auto Body, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 2, 1984 CRB-7-94-3 (November 1, 1995), aff’d, 43 Conn. App. 908 (1996)(per curiam).

Trial commissioner found that claimant suffered relapse when he herniated disc picking up three-ounce piece of car molding. Later, correction granted stating that claimant herniated disc at that time. Held, correction not inconsistent with outcome of case. Reference to Colas, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 86, was misleading; legal causation of injury occurs at time of last event in causation chain, and commissioner was attempting to explain that herniation would have occurred regardless of bending incident. Evidence supports conclusion that bending incident was too minor to be a legal cause.

Medical report established that primary cause of pulmonary disease was smoking, with asbestosis in an early, mild stage; permanent partial disability of lungs not based on asbestos exposure. Mere presence of minor asbestosis did not entitle claimant to benefits. Affirmed.

Trial commissioner found that claimant permanently aggravated hip condition while standing up from a bending position at work. Respondents argued alleged injury did not arise out of employment as a matter of law. Held, cause of injury is question of fact. Doctor’s opinion that injury affected the course of claimant’s disease supported commissioner’s finding. Although some circumstances are so minor in leading to injury that the law can’t recognize them as causes, when the commissioner decides that an incident did play a causal role, we must defer to that factual decision.

Senoski v. Corometrics, Inc., 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 344, 1906 CRB-8-93-11 (September 22, 1995), appeal dismissed, A.C. 15289 (April 30, 1996).

CRB affirmed commissioner’s determination that the claimant’s tendonitis was not caused by her use of a glass-pulling machine at work. Commissioner found claimant’s testimony was not credible when compared with a video showing the use of the machine. See also, Senoski, § 31-298.

Spatafore v. Yale University, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 310, 2011 CRB-3-94-4 (September 14, 1995), aff’d, 239 Conn. 408 (1996).

Claimant was injured while walking back from union meeting on lunch break; injury did not occur on Yale property, although meeting was held in a Yale building. Commissioner found mutual benefit for Yale and claimant in her attendance at the meeting, and found injury compensable. Held, no evidence supported conclusion that meeting was for benefit of employer; independent evidence of such benefit must be shown before such a conclusion may be reached. Also, injuries occurring off-premises during unpaid lunch break are not normally compensable. Special hazard and personal comfort exceptions inapplicable. See also, Spatafore, § 31-301 for discussion of commissioner’s attempt to vacate award.

CRB affirmed commissioner’s conclusion that physical assault on claimant, which occurred in the course of her employment, did not arise out of her employment. Commissioner found that the assault was imported into claimant’s employment from her private life. Discussion of case law, including Fair v. People’s Savings Bank, 207 Conn. 535 (1988). See also, Ferrigno, § 31-301. Factual findings.

State employee tripped on off-premises sidewalk during unpaid afternoon lunch break and fractured her ankle. Difficulty of distinguishing whether this case falls into “coming and going” category or “personal comfort” category irrelevant; case is almost identical to Renckowski v. Yale University, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 48 (March 18, 1993), except claimant was not getting paid at time of injury. Commissioner’s dismissal of claim affirmed.

Commissioner found that claimant fell at work, sustaining injuries to his face and left cheek and the loss of fourteen teeth. CRB remanded issue of causation because there was no medical opinion in record indicating that claimant’s dental extractions were caused by his fall. See also, Cotton, § 31-307.

CRB affirmed commissioner’s conclusion that claimant’s shoulder injury did not occur in the course of his employment, relying upon commissioner’s credibility determination against claimant’s testimony. Medical notes are not always determinative when as in the instant matter, the trial commissioner found that the claimant did not sustain an injury on the date in question, the medical report was based on claimant’s oral history and the medical reports were admitted into evidence for identification only.

CRB affirmed commissioner’s denial of benefits where commissioner concluded that claimant failed to sustain burden of proving that back injury occurred in the course of employment. Commissioner found that claimant lacked credibility due to inconsistencies in his testimony and in evidence. See also, Peters, § 31-301. Factual findings, and § 31-298. Conduct of hearings. Evidence.

CRB affirmed commissioner’s determination that claimant’s back injury was caused by repetitive heavy lifting of lobster crates. Respondents contended that proximate cause of disc herniation was a bending incident at home. After discussing “proximate cause” and “substantial cause” CRB concluded that bending incident at home was too trivial to break the chain of causation between work activities and herniation.

Epps v. Beiersdorf, Inc., 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 57, 1733 CRB-7-93-5 (May 11, 1995), rev’d, 41 Conn. App. 430 (1996).

Commissioner accepted doctor’s opinion that workplace exposure did not cause claimant’s condition, but was an “aggravating factor” on pre-existing lung condition. Commissioner also found that claimant’s symptoms did not decrease when he left work and could be triggered by household products as well. Held, commissioner could reasonably interpret doctor’s testimony as supporting conclusion that claimant’s disease was not aggravated within the meaning of § 31-275(1)(D). Distinction drawn between a worsening of a claimant’s condition caused by workplace exposure, which would be compensable, and a tendency of chemicals present at work to irritate a pre-existing condition without causing further permanent damage, as in this case. (Brouillet, C., dissenting) (employer takes employee as it finds him; chemical exposure was causal factor which aggravated pre-existing respiratory condition. Employer liable for entire disability, as apportionment not appropriate here). Appellate Court reversed CRB and held statute expressly provides for compensation for proportion of disability caused by aggravation. Facts of case and uncontradicted medical testimony clearly support a finding that claimant’s respiratory condition was aggravated by constant exposure to chemicals.

Claimant’s psychiatric condition did not arise out of her employment where depression was caused by respondent’s elimination of claimant’s job and inability to arrange a suitable replacement job. See, Fulco v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 27 Conn. App. 800 (1992). Conduct relating to actual or potential termination of employment differs from conduct relating to duties of employment or incidental to employment. CRB noted that amendment to § 31-275(16) definition of “personal injury” would exclude this kind of claim in the future.

Fantasia v. Tony Pantano Mason Contractors, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 36, 1819 CRB-5-93-8 (May 4, 1995), dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, A.C. 16088 (October 3, 1996), cert. denied, 239 Conn. 947 (1996).

Automobile accident on way home from workers’ compensation hearing did not arise out of employment. “Coming and going” rule discussed in Dombach v. Olkon Corp., 163 Conn. 216 (1972), applies; highway use exceptions in McKiernan v. New Haven, 151 Conn. 496 (1964), inapplicable. No evidence presented by claimant that the ride home from the hearing was made for the employer’s benefit with its knowledge and approval. Trier’s decision reversed and matter was remanded for further proceedings. Appeal to the Appellate Court was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Further proceedings were held below and supplemental findings by the trial commissioner were appealed directly to the Appellate Court. That court found they lacked subject matter jurisdiction as an appeal from the trier’s finding on remand lies with the Compensation Review Board. The Compensation Review Board needs to determine whether the proceedings below were consistent with their opinion. Parties cannot agree to remove the review and appeal directly to the Appellate Court. See, Fantasia v. Tony Pantano Mason Contractors, Inc., 54 Conn. App. 194 (1999), cert. denied, 250 Conn. 927 (1999).

Claimant, a home health care aid, fell during errand to beauty store en route from home of one patient to another. Commissioner found claimant was doing a personal errand and purchased lipstick for patient as an afterthought. Held: commissioner was not required to conclude that trip to beauty store satisfied dual purpose doctrine in Dombach v. Olkon Corp., 163 Conn. 216 (1972), based on his findings. “Personal comfort” doctrine of Lovallo v. American Brass Company, 112 Conn. 635 (1931), similarly not satisfied by findings of commissioner. See also, Bell, § 31-301. Appeal procedure.

In occupational disease cases in which it is difficult to determine relationship of disease to employment, expert medical opinion is necessary. See, Metall v. Aluminum Company of America, 154 Conn. 48 (1946). See also, Paternostro, § 31-301. Factual findings.

CRB affirmed denial of benefits where alleged injury at work occurred due to horseplay initiated by claimant. See also, Simmons, § 31-298, § 31-294c, and § 31-284(a).

Faced with conflicting medical reports, commissioner determined that claimant’s body-building activities, rather than his 1987 compensable injury, likely caused his herniated disc. Held, commissioner’s conclusion supported by report of commissioner’s examiner, which he was entitled to credit as the fact finder, and consistent with claimant’s testimony. CRB will not substitute its conclusions for those of the commissioner. See also, Baccielo, § 31-294f and § 31-301. Appeal procedure.

Conetta v. Stamford, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 68, 1491 CRB-7-92-8 (December 29, 1994).

Remanded where trier’s denial of police officer’s claim for psychiatric disability fails to disclose whether dismissal was based on claimant’s failure to prove causation or whether claim was time barred. See also, Conetta, § 31-294c and § 31-301. Factual findings. See also, Conetta v. Stamford, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 228, 3231 CRB-7-95-12 (June 23, 1997), appeal dismissed, 246 Conn. 281 (1998).

Smith v. Capiezello, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 37, 1712 CRB-2-93-4 (November 8, 1994).

CRB affirmed finding claimant’s alleged back injury, for which treatment was not sought until several years after the accepted compensable head injury, did not arise out of and in the course of employment. See also, Smith § 31-301. Factual findings and Appeal procedure.

Respondents claimed injury merely coincidental with employment. Held, question of fact for trial commissioner as to whether injury arose out of and in course of employment. Discusses definitions of both terms. Sufficient evidence existed to find injury work-related here. Failure of physician to specifically use the term “reasonable medical probability” did not preclude said finding; “in best medical probability” was adequate. See also, Plitnick, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-301. Appeal procedure.

Lee v. Norwalk, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 23, 1626 CRB-7-93-1 (November 7, 1994).

Trier erred in basing the dismissal of claimant’s claim for depression and anxiety, as the result of striking a coworker while operating a sanitation truck, on an IME report improperly entered into evidence. See also, Lee § 31-294f and § 31-298.

Searles v. West Hartford Board of Education, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 414, 1617 CRB-1-93-1 (September 28, 1994), aff’d, 40 Conn. App. 902 (1996)(per curiam).

Auto accident on public highway did not arise out of employment. School teacher was not required nor requested to drive lesson plan to school after calling in sick. See also, Searles, § 31-294c, § 31-301. Factual findings and § 31-301-9. Additional evidence.

Zullo v. Caron Roofing Company, Inc., 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 357, 1634 CRB-4-93-2 (August 2, 1994).

Injury sustained when chair collapsed while attending class at an approved Division of Workers’ Rehabilitation school arose out of and in the course of employment. CRB affirmed trier’s finding which ordered respondent employer to pay benefits for subsequent injury. See, Cole v. Norwalk Wilbert Vault Co., 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 155, 330 CRD-2-84 (February 26, 1988). See also, Zullo, § 31-283a.

Conroy v. Keri Corporation, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 321, 1534 CRB-3-92-10 (July 5, 1994).

Medical evidence supported finding that a causal connection existed between heart attack, pre-existing arterial blockage, and later angioplasty surgery which caused decedent’s death. See also, Conroy, §. 31-301. Factual findings and § 31-306.

Fusciello v. Ronnie Demeo, Inc., 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 283, 1535 CRB-6-92-10 (June 7, 1994).

Record supports trier’s findings and conclusions regarding cause of injuries sustained, not as a result of prior injuries with other employers, but during the course of his present employment. See also, Fusciello, § 31-275(16)[formerly 31-275(8)] and § 31-307.

O’Connor v. Connecticut Light & Power Company, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 265, 1536 CRB-8-92-10 (June 2, 1994).

Claimant’s depression was not caused by work stress but by interpersonal stressors in his life. See also, O’Connor, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Clark v. Gates GMC Truck, Inc., 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 263, 1528 CRB-8-92-10 (June 2, 1994).

Claimant, a car salesman injured in a motor vehicle accident after work hours, was found not to be performing a duty which could be considered as a benefit to the employer. Claimant was on a personal recreational trip and therefore his injuries did not arise out of or in the course of his employment.

Flowers v. Benny’s of Connecticut, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 162, 1527 CRB-2-92-10 (April 26, 1994).

Based on conflicting testimony, mental stress claim as a result of sexual harassment and verbal abuse by a supervisor dismissed. See also, Flowers, § 31-298, § 31-301. Appeal procedure and Factual findings.

Spindler v. Med-Center Home Health Center, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 130, 1474 CRB-7-92-7 (February 28, 1994).

Based on credibility, trier properly concluded that claimant’s automobile accident did not arise out of and during the course of her employment. The claimant, a home health care aide, was not credible regarding her testimony that she was driving between two work assignments when the accident occurred. See also, Spindler, § 31-275(16)[formerly 31-275(8)].

Moffett v. Tighe Williams Salon, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 83, 1489 CRB-4-92-8 (February 9, 1994).

Injury which occurred when claimant slipped and fell on ice as she stepped from the parking lot onto a curb in front of employer’s premises held not compensable. Trier found injury occurred on property which was neither owned, leased or controlled by the employer. Further, claimant’s injury was not connected to the employment by application of the special hazard doctrine. See also, Moffett, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Peddle v. Finish Line Cafe, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 27, 1396 CRB-2-92-2 (January 18, 1994).

No employer-employee relationship existed at the time claimant sustained injuries to her knee, neck, elbow and head, despite testimony from both claimant and employer that the claimant was an employee when injury occurred. See, Peddle, § 31-294c, § 31-284(a), § 31-301-9. Additional evidence.

Nolan v. Brennan Concrete Corporation, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 224, 1362 CRD-7-91-12 (November 4, 1993), dismissed for lack of final judgment, A.C. 13041 (January 5, 1994).

Reversed and remanded. Claimant sustained an injury to his right master hand as a result of an altercation with a coworker at his place of employment. Trier failed to address the reason or cause of the altercation in determining claimant’s injury did not arise out of his employment. Discussion of personal injury and Connecticut’s rule in determining whether a workplace assault between fellow employees is considered to arise out of the employment. See also, Nolan, § 31-275(16)[formerly 31-275(8)] and § 31-284(a).

Beninato v. Specialty Framing, Inc., 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 200, 1306 CRD-8-91-9 (September 24, 1993), aff’d, 36 Conn. App. 911 (1994).

Evidence supports trier’s conclusion that claimant’s psychiatric condition and resulting disability were unrelated to the compensable work incident wherein claimant suffered a neck sprain when pushed by a co-worker. See also, Beninato, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Anderson v. State/UConn Health Center, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 197, 1318 CRD-6-91-10 (September 23, 1993).

CRB affirmed trier’s finding that claimant’s work environment and accompanying job-related stress was a substantial contributing factor to claimant’s psychiatric disability. Note: Psychiatric disability predates effective date of P.A. 93-228. See also, Anderson, § 31-301. Appeal procedure.

Lane v. J. Copperfield LTD, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 153, 1293 CRD-2-91-8 (August 23, 1993).

Claimant sustained injuries when a co-worker picked her up, proceeded to carry claimant across kitchen floor of restaurant, slipped, and dropped claimant. Trier determined claim was compensable. Although activity was arguably horseplay, claimant did not provoke, induce or initiate the act. Further, management was aware of horseplay activities and such activity was considered essential to employee morale. CRB affirmed trier’s finding.

Dumont v. State/Southern Connecticut State University, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 122, 1320 CRD-3-91-10 (June 16, 1993).

Trier found based on medical evidence, that decedent, a French professor, while leading a study tour in Europe, suffered a fatal heart attack caused by stress and physical activity. Trier’s conclusion that decedent’s death arose out of and in the course of employment will not be disturbed as medical testimony refers to the standard of reasonable medical probability. Award to dependent widow for benefits pursuant to § 31-306 affirmed. See also, Dumont, § 31-306 and § 31-301c(b).

Boynton v. American Cyanamid, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 58, 1267 CRD-8-91-8 (April 6, 1993).

See, Boynton § 31-301. Factual findings, and § 31-301-9. Additional evidence.

Renckowski v. Yale University, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 48, 1292 CRD-3-91-9 (March 18, 1993).

Reversed. Trier erred in finding that claimant’s injury sustained while getting coffee during a paid coffee break off the employer’s premises arose out of and in the course of employment. CRB held while claimant was arguably in the course of her employment she was not fulfilling the duties of the employment or doing something incidental to it.

Moore v. M & L Building, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 23, 1238 CRD-8-91-5 (February 23, 1993).

Trier found claimant, a plumber’s apprentice, alleged back injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment.

Brewer v. National Theatre of the Arts, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 1, 1237 CRD-4-91-5 (January 28, 1993).

Claimant, a stage actress, in a traveling theatre company, injured her knee while climbing a fence around a closed pool at a motel. Trier found that the activity was a frolic and detour and was not part of the employment duties or incidental to the employment. CRB affirmed, as the question of whether an employee has so departed from his employment that the injury did not arise out of it is a factual determination.

Muldoon v. Homestead Insulation, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 255, 1226 CRD-4-91-5 (January 13, 1993), rev’d, 33 Conn. App. 695 (1994), rev’d, 231 Conn. 469 (1994), aff’d on remand, 37 Conn. App. 266 (1995)(per curiam).

See, Muldoon, § 31-275(15), § 31-299b, § 31-315 and § 31-284(a).

Pereira v. State/Dept. of Children & Youth Services, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 229, 1209 CRD-7-91-4 (January 7, 1993), aff’d, 228 Conn. 535 (1994).

CRB affirmed trier’s finding that work place stress was not a substantial factor in producing claimant’s mental disability. See also, Pereira, § 31-301. Factual findings and Pereira, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 9, 906 CRD-7-89-8 (January 8, 1991), dismissed for lack of final judgment, A.C. 9884 (March 20, 1991).

Crochiere v. Enfield/Board of Education, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 165, 1069 CRD-1-90-7 (August 27, 1992), aff’d, 227 Conn. 333 (1993).

Evidence supports trier’s finding that claimant’s mental injury arose out of and in the course of employment and was not the result of willful misconduct. The claimant had been a music teacher accused of inappropriately touching a student. Resultant publicity and proceedings were alleged to have resulted in claimant’s severe emotional stress. See also, Crochiere.; § 31-284(a), § 31-294c, § 31-298, § 31-301. Factual findings and Appeal procedure.

Neal v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 163, 1199 CRD-8-91-3 (August 5, 1992).

CRB affirmed trial commissioner’s finding that claimant failed to prove claimed back injury was the result of a slip and fall from a forklift as there was evidence proffered that claimed back injury was the result of a non-work related softball game.

Prisco v. North & Judd, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 154, 1190 CRD-8-91-3 (June 30, 1992).

As trier found claimant sustained an aggravation of his underlying lung disease, and found the pre-existing impairment was not due to occupational disease, respondent employer is liable for the entire resultant disability and apportionment under § 31-275(12)(D) (now § 31-275(1)(D)) not applicable. See also, Prisco, § 31-294c.

Tovish v. Gerber Electronics, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 133, 1143 CRD-4-90-12 (June 4, 1992), aff’d, 32 Conn. App. 595 (1993), cert. granted, 227 Conn. 930 (1993), cert. dismissed, 229 Conn. 587 (1994).

CRB affirmed trier’s finding that decedent’s (salesman’s) heart attack while shoveling snow from his driveway arose in and out of the course of his employment. (Frankl, C., dissenting) Evidence does not support trier’s conclusion. Trier erred in failing to grant portions of motion to correct.

Davidowski v. Commercial Painting Co., Inc., 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 225, 1082 CRD-7-90-7 (October 21, 1991).

Claimant’s injury sustained while exiting parking lot on his motorcycle found not compensable as parking area was not found to be part of the premises of the employer. Also, claimant contended that since the employer furnished a travel allowance, all travel to and from work arose in and out of the employment. CRD disallowed as transportation allowance is part of wages and paid regardless of manner of transportation chosen. See, Orsinie v. Torrance, 96 Conn. 352 (1921).

Cellupica v. Highland Manufacturing, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 206, 969 CRD-5-90-1 (September 3, 1991).

CRD affirmed trier’s factual finding claimant’s leg injury sustained while participating in an employer sponsored softball game arose in and out of the course of employment.

Biondi v. West Haven, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 203, 1024 CRD-3-90-5 (September 3, 1991).

Trier’s factual finding that police officer’s gunshot injury while removing his service revolver from its holster at home upon returning from duty did not arise out of or during the course of his employment will not be disturbed on appeal. The CRD may not review de novo the facts as found but can only determine if the conclusions drawn from the facts were contrary to law, without evidence or based on impermissible or unreasonable factual inferences. See, Fair v. People’s Savings Bank, 207 Conn. 535 (1988).

Benham v. Edgerton, Inc., 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 169, 977 CRD-4-90-2 (July 17, 1991).

Trier’s finding that claimant suffered a compensable injury which accelerated or triggered an aseptic necrosis of the right hip will not be disturbed where issues raised on appeal concern conflicting evidence and corrections which would not alter the legal outcome.

Tomkus v. Upjohn Company, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 163, 972 CRD-3-90-1 (June 28, 1991).

Commissioner’s finding that claimant’s myocardial infarction arose in and out of the course of his employment will not be disturbed as there was sufficient medical evidence and testimony to satisfy proximate causation requirements. See also, Tomkus, § 31-294c and § 31-298.

Rivera v. B & D Molded Products, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 76, 912 CRD-4-89-9 (February 20, 1991).

Where claimant accepts alternative ride to work other than company van and employer had no knowledge of the ride and did not authorize alternative means of transportation, injuries sustained while on the way to work held not compensable.

Zane v. Danbury, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 7, 949 CRD-7-89-11 (January 4, 1991).

Injury sustained by police officer, when his gun discharged while dressing at home, found not compensable.

Smeriglio v. Froelich Transportation, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 166, 872 CRD-7-89-6 (October 26, 1990).

Questions of causal relationship are questions of fact and findings on such factual issues will not be set aside unless resulting from an incorrect application of the law, based on illegal or unreasonable factual inferences, or without evidence. See also, Smeriglio, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Belanger v. Bechtel Construction Co., 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 72, 768 CRD-8-88-9 (April 25, 1990).

Affirmed finding of no work related injury. See also, Belanger, § 31-301, Factual findings.

Johnson v. West Haven, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 56, 792 CRD-3-88-12 (March 21, 1990), aff’d, 23 Conn. 818 (1990)(per curiam).

Injuries sustained to a police officer while assigned to a special service job found compensable. See also, Johnson, § 31-284(a).

Connell v. Long Line Trucking Co., Inc., 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 54, 801 CRD-2-88-12 (March 21, 1990).

See, Connell, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Spataro v. Mattioli Construction, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 41, 784 CRD-4-88-10 (February 21, 1990).

See, Spataro, § 31-294d.

Kroczewski v. Old Fox Chemical, Inc., 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 13, 730 CRD-1-88-5 (January 5, 1990).

See, Kroczewski, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Polier v. Colt Industries, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 7, 763 CRD-1-88-8 (December 21, 1989).

Whether the claimant’s medical treatment was related to his previous compensable injury is a question of causation which must be determined by the trial commissioner.

Golymbieski v. GTE Sylvania, 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 87, 704 CRD-5-88-3 (September 25, 1989).

Trial commissioner’s findings that claimant’s disabling illnesses resulted from personal problems which pre-existed employment and not from stress in the employment must stand where there is evidence to support such findings.

Polizzi v. Orange, 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 56, 675 CRD-3-87 (August 10, 1989), no error, 21 Conn. App. 815 (1990)(per curiam).

Injury sustained by suspended police officer while leaving a disciplinary hearing to which he was summoned arose in and out of the course of employment.

Lombardo v. Harris Graphics, 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 33, 639 CRD-2-87 (July 25, 1989).

Injury sustained by claimant, a volunteer fireman, arose in and out of course of employment where employer paid daily wages pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement during claimant’s absence from employment in order to fight fires.

Jagush v. Litton-Winchester Electronics, 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 1, 609 CRD-7-87 (June 9, 1989).

See, Jagush, § 31-301, Factual findings.

Cruz v. Consolidated Industries, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 92, 580 CRD-5-87 (January 20, 1989).

Claimant failed to meet burden of proof.

Bruce v. Lynch, Traub, Keefe & Snow, P.C., 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 99, 587 CRD-4-87 (January 26, 1989).

Claimant’s injuries sustained while horseback riding on a company sponsored trip upheld as compensable.

Besade v. Interstate Security Services, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 83, 593 CRD-2-87 (January 13, 1989), no error, 212 Conn. 441 (1989).

Claimant’s disability due to TMJ and mononucleosis held causally connected to work related exposure to ammonia fumes. See later case, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Gallagher v. Edmunds Manufacturing Co., 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 133, 494 CRD-6-86 (June 30, 1988).

Ricigliano v. American Freight Systems, 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 121, 556 CRD-3-87 (June 24, 1988).

Claimant’s auto accident which occurred late at night after dinner meeting with customer and while driving employer provided vehicle held compensable. However, remanded for determination of whether subsequent noncompensable accident was an intervening event in the chain of causation.

Davis v. Electrolux Corp., 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 109, 217 CRD-5-84 (June 20, 1988).

Trial commissioner found that claimant-assistant sales manager’s automobile accident which occurred while claimant was returning home after picking up a bracelet to be used as a sales contest prize arose in and out of course of employment.

Ballester v. K & D Auto Body, Inc., 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 35, 578 CRD-3-86 (April 6, 1988).

Dependent’s death due to motor vehicle accident was found compensable when trip was occasioned by need to return home to pick up keys to employer’s premises.

Bernier v. Enfield, 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 25, 358 CRD-1-84 (March 29, 1988).

Police officer’s fall in driveway held compensable as driveway was not place of abode.

Chavarriaga v. Pathmark, 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 16, 363 CRD-7-84 (March 24, 1988).

Assault to claimant in parking garage held compensable where parking area was held to be an annex of employer’s premises.

Sager v. GAB Business Services, Inc., 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 12, 430 CRD-3-85 (March 23, 1988).

Held testimony of physician that job stress was an important factor was the legal equivalent of substantial factor. See also earlier CRD decision re: Sager, § 31-301, Appeal procedure.

Hutchinson v. State, 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 10, 292 CRD-2-84 (March 23, 1988).

Trial commissioner’s conclusion that claimant’s heart attack was not causally related to job stress will not be disturbed where based on conflicting medical evidence and expert medical opinion relied on was based on reasonable medical probability.

Cole v. Norwalk Wilbert Vault Co., 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 155, 330 CRD-2-84 (February 26, 1988).

Held injury sustained by claimant while in training school program pursuant to DWR placement arose in and out of the course of employment.

Hebert v. New Departure Hyatt Bearings, 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 94, 300 CRD-6-84 (June 12, 1987), no error, 14 Conn. App. 819 (1988)(per curiam).

Cervical surgery found causally connected to back injury which resulted in herniation of disc at the L-1 level.

Fair v. People’s Savings Bank, 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 71, 289 CRD-4-83 (May 21, 1987), rev’d, 207 Conn. 535 (1988).

CRD held resultant death of employee from attack on employer’s premises by an estranged lover compensable. Reversed by Supreme Court. See also, Fair, § 31-301, Factual findings.

Parandes v. Hartford, 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 56, 222 CRD-1-83 (April 20, 1987).

Pre-existing psychiatric condition was not aggravated by a work-related head injury.

Irving v. Hoyland, 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 25, 249 CRD-7-83 (March 4, 1987).

Employer’s payment of an allowance for transportation did not constitute furnishing of transportation.

Parizeau v. State, 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 137, 194 CRD-2-83 (January 22, 1987).

Full pay awarded under § 5-142(a) where member of University of Connecticut police force was injured while walking from his patrol car to the office.

McDonough v. Connecticut Bank & Trust, 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 46, 184 CRD-2-82 (April 1, 1986), no error, 204 Conn. 104 (1987).

Claimant’s heart condition held to have arisen from on the job stress.

Zipoli v. Watertown, 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 23, 215 CRD-5-83 (January 17, 1986).

Teacher who suffered mental disability resulting from stress at work awarded benefits.

Duncan v. Waterbury, 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 1, 168 CRD-5-82 (August 14, 1985).

Off-duty police officer’s intervention in an altercation held compensable even though officer may have had a personal motive in altercation.

Allen v. Northeast Utilities, 2 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 120, 216 CRD-5-83 (February 22, 1985), no error, 6 Conn. App. 498 (1986).

Where claimant was found dead near work site, presumption that death arose in and out of the course of employment must be considered with other facts.

Fusco v. John J. Brennan Construction Co., 2 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op.107, 280 CRD-5-83 (October 19, 1984).

Injury to claimant which occurred while jump starting employer’s vehicle which co-worker was required to drive to work, held compensable.

DiManno v. Pompei’s Lounge, 2 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 90, 108 CRD-1-81 (July 27, 1984).

Waitress’s injury which was incurred when patron struck her with his car in parking lot on employer’s premises found compensable.

Carafano v. Hamden, 2 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 53, 122 CRD-3-82 (May 30, 1984).

Death due to travel on highway where claimant was travelling from one work premises to another held compensable where travel was incidental to employment.

Luddie v. Foremost Insurance Co., 2 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 30, 220 CRD-6-83 (September 9, 1983), no error, 5 Conn. App. 193 (1985).

Claimant’s car accident held not compensable as facts showed claimant was on a personal frolic at the time of the accident.

Bushey v. Iseli Co., 2 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 20, 120 CRD-5-82 (May 23, 1983), aff’d, 3 Conn. App. 370 (1985), cert. denied, 196 Conn. 803 (1985).

Public roadway adjacent to employment parking lot was not a reasonable extension of employment premises.

Tosun v. Uniroyal Footwear, 2 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 10, 104 CRD-5-81 (May 13, 1983).

Claim for additional benefits due to increased hearing loss dismissed.

Emhoff v. State, 2 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 7, 139 CRD-2-82 (May 11, 1983).

Commissioner rejected employer’s claim that cause of death was horseplay when claimant fell over the railing of an open stairwell.

Gecewicz v. Sealtest Foods Div., 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 195, 77 CRD-1-81 (October 21, 1982).

Heart attack while in the course of employment does not require unusual activity or exertion.

Papageorge v. Bela Magyari & Sons, 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 191, 84 CRD-7-81 (September 15, 1982).

Burden of proof as to the issue of employment rests with claimant.

Luddie v. Foremost Insurance Co., 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 187, 90 CRD-6-81 (September 13, 1982).

Remanded. Absence of evidence to support claimant’s car accident was in vehicle furnished by employer.

Coppola v. New Haven, 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 160, 75 CRD-3-81 (August 11, 1982).

Death of employee due to fight with co-worker was causally connected to employment.

Tusman v. Spiegel & Zemicnik, Inc., 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 153, 63 CRD-3-81 (August 3, 1982).

Employee sustained a compensable injury while assisting an outside salesman in transporting machine.

Perruccio v. Connecticut Employees Union Independent, Inc., 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 67, 34 CRD-6-80 (October 30, 1981).

Union president on 24 hour call shot due to union rivalry entitled to benefits.

Donato v. Pantry Pride, 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 21, 2 CRD-4-79 (January 26, 1981), aff’d, 37 Conn. Sup. 836 (1981).