 |
||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzalez v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New York, 4284 CRB-8-00-8 (September 13, 2001).
Where employer refused to authorize initial treatment at Industrial Health Care due to claimant’s failure to report injury to employer in writing, trier had authority under § 31-279(c) to authorize payment of compensation to claimant even though he initially treated with a doctor outside the medical plan. Moreover, medical care plans do not begin to play a role in claimant’s choice of treaters until the subscribing employer accepts responsibility for providing initial treatment. See, Gonzalez, § 31-294d.
Trimachi v. State/Workers’ Compensation Commission, 3749 CRB-1-97-12 (August 25, 1999).
See also, Trimachi, § 31-294d, § 31-307.
Coles v. Star, Inc., 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 67, 3239 CRB-7-95-12 (October 25, 1996).
On appeal to CRB, respondents contested the trial commissioner’s decision to authorize the claimant to treat with a physician who was not in the approved medical care plan’s list of authorized treaters. CRB remanded the matter to the trial commissioner for a formal hearing and decision because without a transcript or findings of fact, it was unable to engage in meaningful review and could not properly consider this appeal in accordance with § 31-301 C.G.S. See also, Coles, § 31-301. Appeal procedure.
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|