THESE ANNOTATIONS ARE PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
Full texts of opinions, statutes and court decisions should be consulted and all citations and references fully researched by the reader.
The Annotations to Compensation Review Board Opinions are presented “as is” and the Commission makes no warranties as to the suitability of this information for any given purpose.
Please note also that Annotations change periodically due to several factors including, but not limited to, Appellate and Supreme Court decisions issued in workers’ compensation cases.
Anderson v. Target Capital Partners, 5615 CRB-6-10-12 (January 3, 2012).
Claimant was totally disabled but respondents filed Form 36 based on medical opinion claimant had work capacity. Neighbor observed claimant engaged in active endeavors around home. Claimant relied on treating physician’s opinions, but trial commissioner found claimant not fully credible based on demeanor at hearing. Claimant appealed granting of Form 36 asserting commissioner needed to explain why he did not rely on opinions of treating physicians. CRB upheld trial commissioner. Commissioner sole judge of credibility and demeanor of witness. Leandres v. Mark IV Construction, Inc., 5159 CRB-4-06-11 (October 22, 2007). If claimant’s credibility in question, trial commissioner may find treating physician’s opinions unreliable. Abbotts v. Pace Motor Lines, Inc., 4974 CRB-4-05-7 (July 28, 2006), aff’d, 106 Conn. App. 436 (2008), cert. denied, 287 Conn. 910 (2008). Trial commissioner must only reference the facts he relied upon and his conclusions in his finding, and need not explain why he chose not to rely on other evidence. Cable v. Bic Corp., 270 Conn. 433, 440 (2004). Case indistinguishable from Smith v. Federal Express Corporation, 5405 CRB-7-08-12 (December 1, 2009). See also, Anderson, § 31-301; § 31-301-4; § 31-301-9; § 31-307.