CRB Case Annotations re: Section 31-301-9

CRB noted that police board’s finding regarding disability rating, much like Social Security Administration ruling, is not generally material to determination of permanent partial impairment by Workers’ Compensation Commission. See, Napolitano, § 31-278, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-308(b).

Motion to Submit Additional Evidence denied. One report was cumulative, and CRB was unconvinced that it could not have been provided to trier before record closed. One report was reasonably disregarded by trier because it was provided by social worker rather than a practitioner of “healing arts” under § 20-1, while related letter should have been introduced earlier, as claimant’s need for detoxification due to narcotics addiction was properly at issue. See, Cotugno, § 31-294d.

Additional evidence submitted with claimant’s appeal was treated as a Motion to Submit Additional Evidence and was denied, where the claimant could have obtained the medical reports prior to the formal hearing and did not offer any reason for not doing so. We will not allow a party to try case in a piecemeal manner. See, Donlin, § 31-308(b).

CRB denied pro se’s Motion to Submit Additional Evidence where every document was available long before formal hearing and should have been presented as evidence at trial. See, Drew, § 31-301. Appeal procedure, § 31-315.

The board denied the claimant’s Motion to Submit Additional Evidence where the claimant sought to introduce medical reports from physicians whom he visited after the close of the formal hearing. The board explained that the claimant could have acquired these reports prior to the formal hearing in preparation of his case. See, Rodrigues, § 31-279-3; § 31-296, Voluntary agreements (discontinuance of payments); § 31-298.

CRB denied motion to submit into evidence doctor’s report and preliminary correspondence between attorneys concerning respondents’ attempt to obtain certain test results. Tests in question had been performed over a year earlier, and doctor’s revised medical report—which was based solely on those test results—could have been obtained before formal hearing if their need had been anticipated. See, Briggs, § 31-298, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Motion to submit report of rehabilitation hospital doctor denied where discharge summary was concerned a time period several months subsequent to closing date of total disability claim. See, D’Amico, § 31-307. Prior decision in D’Amico, 4029 CRB-5-99-4 (May 19, 2000), cited at § 31-294d.

Motion to submit additional evidence denied where trier permissibly refused to reopen record to allow witness to testify for second time, and respondent sought to introduce same evidence via appeal route. Witness was available throughout trial. See, Audi, § 31-298, § 31-315; cited at Audi, § 31-296, § 31-307.

Where respondents were unable to authenticate Form 43 sufficiently to get it into evidence at trial, CRB did not allow them to reintroduce it on appeal along with certified mail receipts indicating that it was delivered to, and signed for by, an employee of this Commission. Proffered evidence was actually an undated, unstamped copy of a Form 43. Possible error by this agency in processing Form 43 did not excuse respondents’ failure to offer certified mail receipts at trial as proof that the notice to contest liability was properly sent and delivered. No “good reason” adduced for failing to present evidence at trial. See, Scott, § 31-294c.

Claimant’s Motion to Submit Additional Evidence denied where the claimant failed to offer any reason for presenting evidence after the formal hearing had been closed, and where the claimant offered no indication that the evidence is really new or was undiscoverable with due diligence at the time of the original hearings. See, Tomaszek, § 31-315.

In her Motion to Submit Additional Evidence, claimant sought to submit a Form 36, a Form 43, and a proposed voluntary agreement, all of which she had received well after the last formal hearing. CRB explained that it did not have jurisdiction over these issues, as the proper procedure would be to request an informal hearing, and if no agreement could be reached, a formal hearing could be held. The board explained that an appeal would be possible from the decision of the trial commissioner who would conduct this formal hearing, but that no such appeal had yet reached the board. See also, Covert, § 31-294d, § 31-296 Voluntary Agreements (discontinuance of payments), § 31-301-4.

Where additional evidence was discoverable at time of trial and alleged reason for failure to present this evidence was inadvertence, CRB denied claimant’s motion. See also, Osowiecki, § 31-294f.

CRB denied respondent’s Motion to Submit Additional Evidence where additional evidence was discoverable at the time of trial and no reason was given for failure to present it at that time. See also, Saleh, § 31-279-2, § 31-298, § 31-300, § 31-315.

Motion to Submit Additional Evidence denied where insurer and employer were involved in dispute over existence of coverage on date of injury, and employer sought to introduce a form letter from the insurer that implied the existence of an insurer-employer relationship on date of injury. Notice was unlikely to mislead employer at this late stage of the proceedings, and was not material. See also, DiBello, § 31-278, § 31-294c, § 31-301. Appeal procedure, § 31-348.

CRB affirmed trial commissioner’s conclusion that claimant entered into a contract of service with LFA which subsequently lent him to Tait Moving Company. LFA was thus liable to pay compensation for the claimant’s compensable injury pursuant to § 31-292. Though appellants argued in their Motion to Submit Additional Evidence that they were not aware that the lent employee statute was at issue, nevertheless the elements of this statute (whether claimant entered into an employment contract with LFA which then lent his services to Tait Moving Company) were covered in depth during the formal hearing, and the evidence described in appellant’s motion would have been relevant even in the absence of § 31-292. Accordingly, with the additional evidence having been discoverable at the time of trial and no good reason for the failure to present this evidence at that time having been given, the Motion to Submit Additional Evidence was denied. See also, Kearse, § 31-292.

CRB denied Motion to Submit Additional Evidence where appellant failed to offer desired testimony at formal hearing because of failure to anticipate that commission would not enforce a particular agreement. This was a tactical decision, and appellant must accept the results. See also, Prioli, § 31-278, § 31-290a, § 31-301. Appeal procedure, § 31-315, § 31-327. Subsequent ruling in Prioli, 3955 CRB-6-98-12 (October 16, 2000), § 31-301c.

Dudley v. Wadsworth Glen, 3942 CRB-8-98-12 (October 14, 1999), aff’d, 60 Conn. App. 907 (2000)(per curiam).

CRB denied pro se claimant’s request to submit tape recording of physician, where he did not allege a good reason for failing to present such evidence at the formal hearing. See also, Dudley, § 31-294d.

CRB denied claimant’s Motion to Submit Additional Evidence in the form of a Social Security decision. Board has repeatedly held that decisions regarding Social Security disability are not material to Chapter 568 claims insofar as the standards used by the Social Security Administration differ from those used by the Workers’ Compensation Commission.

Documents proffered by successor counsel in attorney’s fee dispute were not material to issue before CRB. See also, Contreras, § 31-327(b).

Claimant sought to submit evidence that was available at the time of trial. Motion denied. See also, Crouse, § 31-301. Factual findings.

CRB denied claimant’s request to submit sketches of employer’s place of business, as such evidence was clearly available at the time of the formal hearing. See also, Fiore, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Claimant’s Motion to Submit Additional Evidence was denied by CRB where the deposition transcript which the claimant sought to submit was in existence at the time of the formal hearing and was not offered into evidence at that time. See also, Granata, § 31-301. Factual findings.

CRB affirmed trier’s denial of counsel’s Motion to Disappear, and denied motion to submit as additional evidence several letters that explained that counsel and its client, the self-insured administrator, had been discharged by the respondent employer, which was in bankruptcy. Letters were available at time of hearing, and were merely self-serving statements offering legal analysis by interested parties. CRB stressed that law firm had represented both parties throughout claim, and pro se claimant should not be left with no one to negotiate with on the other side (no substitute counsel was offered to represent the employer). (Frankl, C., dissenting) Letters are material, as they establish that the firm is no longer acting as counsel in this case. Also cited at Surozenski, § 31-301. Appeal procedure.

Harris v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney, 3762 CRB-1-98-1 (February 23, 1999), aff’d, 56 Conn. App. 912 (2000)(per curiam), cert. denied, 253 Conn. 907 (2000).

Motion to Submit Additional Evidence denied, as the admissibility of psychologist’s reports was an issue for the trial commissioner, and a letter sent from the Chairman to the claimant and copied to all parties was part of the record already. See also, Harris, § 31-294f, § 31-315. Prior decision at Harris, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 357, 3143 CRB-5-95-8 (June 26, 1996), § 31-275(17), § 31-298.

CRB denied claimant’s request to submit additional evidence, where the evidence was available at the time of the formal hearing, but not admitted into evidence. There was no evidence in the transcript to support the claimant’s contention that her attorney was confused and inadvertently failed to include several medical reports in a binder which was submitted as an exhibit. See also, Perry, § 31-301. Factual findings.

CRB granted Motion to Submit Additional Evidence where evidence consisted of proof that notice was delivered to Second Injury Fund before October 1, 1995 filing deadline. See also, Gouborn, § 31-349.

See, Cramer, § 31-275(1), § 31-301. Factual findings. § 31-301-4. Correction of finding.

The claimant sought to submit an additional medical report subsequent to the last formal hearing. The CRB affirmed the trial commissioner’s denial of that request, as the evidence was not really new or undiscoverable with due diligence prior to the close of the formal hearing.

Motion to Submit Additional Evidence and Testimony sought to submit medical report that was issued after last formal hearing. Claimant did not demonstrate that this report was undiscoverable earlier, and description of evidence suggested that it might prove to be cumulative. Motion denied. See also, Pallotto, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Medical provider appealed from ruling of trial commissioner that respondents were not liable for claimant’s medical bills. Provider attempted to offer additional evidence, but the only reason it was not submitted at the formal hearing was that the provider failed to appear on its own behalf. Motion denied. See also, Willett-Pine, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Claimant could not introduce additional evidence. Medical report from 1997 was a clarification of earlier report, and could have been obtained earlier. Letters from attorney were not material to central issue in case, and previous award is already part of the record. See also, DeMartino, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Respondent temporary employment agency was found to be the employer under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Trier also found that there was no persuasive evidence making the company that used the claimant’s services an employer. Respondents sought to introduce as additional evidence a Superior Court decision that held that the company that used the claimant’s services could not be sued in Superior Court because it was an employer under the Act, and a civil suit was barred by the exclusivity provision in § 31-284(a). Motion granted. Importance of consistency in decisionmaking discussed; Superior Court decision was relevant evidence. Also, it was unclear that the respondents knew about the Superior Court decision before the date proposed findings were due. (Trier’s decision was issued after the Superior Court decision came out).

Claimant moved to submit as additional evidence an affidavit by a Federal Express employee establishing that its petition for review was delivered to the District Office on the ninth day after notice of the commissioner’s decision was sent. Petition for review had not been stamped “received” until four days later, and was apparently late. Motion granted, appeal not dismissed. See also, Cortesi, § 31-301. Appeal procedure.

Motion to Submit Additional Evidence granted where commissioner found that insurer had canceled insurance policy coverage on May 15, 1994, and appellant sought to introduce a civil complaint seeking payment of unpaid premium for coverage provided between September 29, 1993 and September 29, 1994. See also, Thibodeau, § 31-348.

Reeder v. Zohne Industries, 3313 CRB-5-96-3 (August 1, 1997), aff’d, 49 Conn. App. 904 (1998)(per curiam).

Claimant did not show that he or his doctor ever attempted to obtain safety data sheets before the formal hearing. CRB cannot now grant request to admit those reports as additional evidence. See also, Reeder, § 31-301. Factual findings.

CRB concluded that the claimant has failed to show good reason for presenting medical records after the formal hearing had been closed, and thus denied the claimant’s request to submit additional evidence. Moreover, the claimant offered no indication that the proffered evidence was really new or that it was undiscoverable with due diligence at the time of the original hearings. See also, Roy, § 31-301. Factual findings.

CRB denied claimant’s motion to submit additional evidence where evidence was available and could have been obtained with due diligence during formal hearing. The claimant sought to present a letter from the treating physician.

CRB granted the claimant’s motion to submit additional evidence, a doctor’s report, pursuant to Admin. Reg. § 31-301-9. The trial commissioner had found that the reports issued by said doctor did not substantiate the claimant’s claim that she had a shoulder condition which was caused by the compensable injury. The doctor’s report submitted by the claimant had been issued after the formal hearing and contradicted his prior reports which were relied upon by the trial commissioner. The CRB also noted that the claimant had acted pro se. But see later Bryan after remand, 3730 CRB-1-97-11 (May 7, 1999), rev’d, 62 Conn. App. 733 (2001).

See, Ryba, § 31-296.

Claimant’s need for additional medical reports was due to failure to anticipate the nature of respondents’ contradictory evidence at trial. Not a good reason for failing to present evidence at formal hearing. Also, evidence regarding bias is not backed up by concrete information, and mere allegations are not enough to warrant reopening case on appeal. Motion denied. See also, Pronovost, § 31-301. Factual findings.

See, Bailey, § 31-278.

In their Motion to Submit Additional Evidence, the respondents seek to submit further medical reports in support of their contention that the claimant’s pre-existing condition materially and substantially contributed to his injury. The respondents contend that such evidence should be allowed on the basis that subsequent to the trial commissioner’s Finding and Order, the Supreme Court of Connecticut issued Rowe v. Plastic Design, Inc., 37 Conn. App. 131 (March 7, 1995). CRB denied the motion as the evidence was not undiscoverable during the course of the proceedings below, and was cumulative.

The trial commissioner found that the decedent was a sole proprietor at the time he suffered a fatal heart attack on May 20, 1992, and thus was not covered under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The trial commissioner further found that the claimant had not elected to be covered under the workers’ compensation system pursuant to § 31-275(10). The claimant seeks to present evidence regarding “the customary practice... for an insurance agent to take care of any filings concerning election of coverage forms with the Workers’ Compensation Commission....” CRB denied motion as such evidence was available at time of formal hearing. See also, Marandino, § 31-275(9).

In her motion to submit additional evidence, the claimant seeks to present a medical opinion from her treating physician regarding the claims for neck and low back injuries which were dismissed by the trial commissioner. In support of the claimant’s motion, the claimant contends that her physician refused to examine her because of an unpaid balance of approximately $109.00. During the formal hearing process, the claimant did not advise the trial commissioner that she was unable to obtain a medical examination from her treating physician, nor did the claimant raise this issue at the formal hearing in the form of a motion for a continuance until she could obtain such evidence. As the claimant has not preserved this issue on the record, but rather is raising it now for the first time on appeal, CRB denied the motion.

Ross v. Swift, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 210, 2292 CRB-6-95-2 (April 23, 1996).

Respondents sought to introduce evidence of their bankruptcy, even though it was available at time of formal hearing. CRB normally rejects such evidence; however, the federal bankruptcy statute and relevant caselaw specifically provide that a discharge in bankruptcy renders any judgment on a discharged debt null and void. Purpose of law is to make it unnecessary for the discharged debtor to do anything at all in state court action. Thus, employer’s failure to plead Chapter 7 discharge as a defense to the claimant’s claim does not preclude assertion of that defense here. Remanded for findings as to actual scope of discharge.

The respondents filed a motion to submit additional evidence in order to present evidence of the decedent’s earnings prior to his retirement, contending that the decedent’s benefit rate was improperly determined. At oral argument, claimant did not deny that his benefit rate was incorrect. Therefore, CRB construed respondents’ motion as a motion to reopen pursuant to § 31-315 and remanded for a new determination of the benefit rate.

Pro se claimant had counsel at time of formal hearing, and counsel chose not to pursue certain evidence due to cost of producing it. That decision was tactical, and additional evidence offered by claimant was thus available at time of formal hearing. Motion to submit additional evidence denied. Also, trial commissioner’s acceptance of the testimony of claimant’s co-workers over that of other witnesses was permissible, as it is commissioner’s job to determine credibility. Commissioner’s dismissal of back injury claim affirmed.

See, Krajewski, § 31-308a for discussion of Motion to Submit Additional Evidence.

Motion to submit additional evidence granted, in part, where despite attempts by the claimant and the Respondent to obtain presence of treater at the formal hearings, he consistently made himself unavailable and impossible to subpoena. This board is troubled by this alleged conduct on the part of a treating physician.

Claimant sought to introduce September 1994 videotape of claimant’s activities. Motion denied; issue was claimant’s condition on August 18, 1993, the alleged date of injury, and whether medical treatment the following day was necessary. Inference videotape might create as to claimant’s credibility would not likely affect decision on reasonableness of treatment.

Motion to submit additional evidence denied. Although the claimant contended that he attempted to subpoena the witness but that he could not be located for service of a subpoena prior to the formal hearing, the trial commissioner found that the witness was employed by the respondent and was available at the time of the formal hearing. See also, Lopez, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Due to compelling circumstances, board exercised its equitable powers by construing the claimant’s motion to submit additional evidence as a motion to modify the award based on changed conditions of fact under § 31-315. The compelling circumstances included the fact that subsequent to the close of the formal hearing, the claimant’s treater and an IME (requested by the employer) both agreed that surgery was necessary. The trial commissioner had found that surgery was not necessary.

Ayres v. United Methodist Home of Conn., 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 228, 1743 CRB-4-93-6 (August 10, 1995), aff’d, 44 Conn. App. 927 (1997)(per curiam), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 934 (1997).

CRB denied pro se claimant’s second motion to submit additional evidence which was presented for the first time at oral argument before this board. Claimant sought to introduce evidence that her disability worsened. CRB advised claimant that she should present such evidence in a motion to reopen under 31-315.

Ayres v. United Methodist Home of Conn., 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 220, 1743 CRB-4-93-6 (August 7, 1995), aff’d, 44 Conn. App. 927 (1997)(per curiam), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 934 (1997).

CRB denied pro se claimant’s request to introduce numerous documents, which were available at the time of her formal hearings, immaterial, or cumulative. CRB explained requirements of § 31-301-9.

Prescott v. Echlin, Inc., 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 191, 2029 CRB-3-94-4 (July 13, 1995).

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

Commissioner did not err in granting state’s motion to reopen where state had alleged that it did not receive timely notice of hearing, claimants could not show prejudice, and commissioner had not yet issued award. Commissioner has considerable discretion on motions to reopen, and Admin. Reg. § 31-297(b)-1 gives commissioner power to waive filing requirements of the party opposing the Motion to Preclude. Section 31-301-9 not applicable here, as motion to reopen not made to CRB. See also, Walter, § 31-294c.

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. Therefore, CRB denied claimant’s request to submit a medical report that opined the percentage of permanent disability attributable to the compensable injury.

The claimant sought to introduce live testimony from his treater to establish that he initially complained of certain injuries which the commissioner held not to be causally related to the claimant’s compensable chemical burn. CRB denied motion, as it was claimant’s burden to prove causation and claimant chose to present medical reports rather than live testimony at the trial level. See also, Casanovas, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Commissioner held that claimant, a nurse, failed to sustain her burden of proving that she suffered injuries as a result of a vaccine administered by the employer. At time of formal hearings, claimant’s treater was unable to render an opinion regarding causation because of several “unanswered questions.” Claimant sought to introduce, as new evidence, the treater’s recent opinion regarding causation. CRB held that the recent medical opinion was not undiscoverable, nor was the opinion itself based upon new or undiscoverable information, and that claimant failed to act with due diligence by waiting three years to procure the opinion. Distinguished from Canfield v. Consolidated Freightways, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 59, 1127 CRD-7-90-10 (1992).

The claimant/appellee, who was awarded benefits by the commissioner, sought to introduce a medical report in order to respond to issues raised by employer/appellant on appeal. CRB denied request, as evidence was cumulative and could have been procured at time of trial.

Calinescu v. CFD Associates, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 298, 1794 CRB-8-93-8 (April 21, 1995), aff’d, 40 Conn. App. 912 (1996).

Cumulative evidence will not be admitted unless likely to produce a different result. Motion denied. See also, Calinescu, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Motion to submit additional evidence will not be considered where appeal is dismissed as untimely. See also, Brockett, § 31-301. Appeal procedure.

Claimant sought to introduce testimony of out-of-state witnesses whose whereabouts were unknown at time of hearing. Because the reason for the absence of those witnesses at trial was the claimant’s failure to anticipate their necessity, claimant was not relieved of responsibility for their presence. No showing made that witnesses could not have been located and deposed before the formal hearing. Not a “good reason;” motion denied. See also, Glenn, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 249, aff’d, 45 Conn. App. 906 (1997)(per curiam), § 31-301. Factual findings.

Sharkey v. Triangle/PWC, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 127, 2111 CRB-6-94-7 (March 21, 1995).

In support of his motion to submit additional evidence, the claimant sought to introduce testimony from his supervisor and a co-worker, neither of whom appeared at the trial level, to testify that the claimant’s injury occurred during the course of his employment. The claimant contended that those witnesses were not presented at the formal because the claimant was not aware that the issue of “in the course of” was disputed by the respondents. CRB denied motion, and noted that claimant was aware, through the Form 43, that respondents disputed his claim that the injury occurred at work.

Claimant’s vocational expert not relied on by commissioner because expert had not inquired into claimant’s prior work history, I.Q., dexterity, etc. Held, claimant could not introduce report taking those factors into account, as evidence could have been made available at trial. Failure to anticipate necessity or relevance of evidence not a “good reason.” Claimant also alleged evidence immaterial, which conflicts with § 31-301-9.

Out-of-court statement proffered by respondent contradicting claimant’s testimony inadmissible; no cross-examination had been allowed. Also, respondent’s need to leave hearing early to pick up his son was not a “good reason” to fail to offer evidence; continuance could have been requested. Statement available at time of hearing. Motion denied.

Carr v. Southern New England Telephone Co., 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 21, 1846 CRB-3-93-9 (November 4, 1994), appeal dismissed, A.C. 14126 (January 18, 1995), cert. denied, 233 Conn. 910 (1995).

Appellant’s failure to have available medical reports introduced into evidence and marked either for identification or full exhibits below is not “good reason” for CRB to grant motion to submit additional evidence at appellate level. See also, Carr, § 31-301. Factual findings.

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).

CRB denied pro se claimant’s motion to submit additional evidence where evidence sought to be admitted existed prior to trial proceedings. Additionally, claimant failed to state why evidence was material and why it was not submitted below. See also, Searles, § 31-275(1), § 31-294c and § 31-301. Factual findings.

Miller v. TVCCA, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 348, 1675 CRB-2-93-3 (July 29, 1994), aff’d, 39 Conn. App. 935 (1995).

Motion to submit additional medical records fails to state good reasons for failure to present below. See also, Miller, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Cummings v. Twin Tool Mfg. Co., 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 341, 1542 CRB-1-92-10 (July 11, 1994), aff’d, 40 Conn. App. 36 (1996).

Claimant’s motion to submit additional evidence failed to satisfy administrative requirements. See also, Cummings, § 31-296, § 31-298, § 31-301. Factual findings and § 31-307.

Ocasio v. Toyotomi, USA, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 330, 1668 CRD-7-93-2 (July 5, 1994).

Claimant sought to challenge the credibility of certain eyewitness testimony, to add additional medical evidence, truck shipping records and some evidence as to worker harassment. CRB found evidence was readily discoverable at the time of the proceedings below. Further, reasons given for failing to present the evidence below insufficient.

Soares v. Glass Industries, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 189, 1377 CRB-3-92-1 (May 4, 1994).

Claimant’s motion to submit additional documents and request that said documents be admitted into evidence granted where parties appearing before the CRB agreed to submission. Respondent’s motion to submit additional evidence denied.

Vetro v. Banton Dry Wall, Inc., 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 154, 1316 CRD-3-91-10 (April 22, 1994).

Appellant’s motion contending it was denied the opportunity to participate and present evidence below denied as CRB found record shows appellant was afforded the opportunity to participate, and further, a representative of respondent employer was present at hearings below. See also, Vetro, § 31-298 and § 31-301. Appeal procedure.

Morris v. A & A Acoustics, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 221, 1488 CRB-7-92-8 (March 22, 1994).

Motions to submit additional evidence denied. See also, Morris, § 31-298 and § 31-301. Factual findings.

Burgos v. United Technologies/Sikorsky Aircraft Division, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 204, 1441 CRB-4-92-6 (March 15, 1994).

Request to submit additional evidence denied where claimant failed to satisfy requirements of administrative regulation. See also, Burgos, § 31-294d and § 31-308a.

McNulty v. Stamford, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 32, 1332 CRD-7-91-10 (January 26, 1994), rev’d, 37 Conn. App. 835 (1995).

CRB held evidence which respondent employer sought to add was unnecessary given the conclusion reached on the merits. See also, McNulty, § 31-301. Appeal procedure, § 31-306, § 7-433c (where appellate court reversed CRB and held that the second injury fund was not liable to municipalities for payments pursuant to § 7-433c).

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

CRB granted respondents’ motion to submit additional evidence thereby admitting into evidence copies of documents stemming from a third party action filed in superior court. See also, Peddle, § 31-275(1), § 31-284(a), § 31-294c.

Issues raised by respondents motion to submit additional evidence moot where trier vacates his supplemental finding.

Peterson v. The Hartford Courant, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 296, 1389 CRB-1-92-3 (December 8, 1993), aff’d, 36 Conn. App. 937 (1994)(per curiam).

Motion to submit additional evidence denied where motion failed to identify evidence, its materiality or the reasons why it was not presented below. See also, Peterson, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Milardo v. Shuck Petroleum, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 279, 1559 CRB-8-92-11 (November 22, 1993).

Motion to submit additional evidence denied where movant failed to satisfy the requirements of Administrative Regulation § 31-301-9. See also, Milardo, § 31-301. Appeal procedure.

Cooper v. Seymour, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 274, 1336 CRD-5-91-11 (November 19, 1993).

Motion to submit additional evidence denied where movant failed to satisfy the requirements of Administrative Regulation § 31-301-9. See also, Cooper, § 7-433c.

Coates v. Turbine Components, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 264, 1365 CRD-3-92-1 (November 18, 1993).

Motion to correct is not the proper vehicle to introduce additional evidence. See also, Coates, § 31-307.

Lederman v. Friendly Ice Cream Corporation, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 180, 1420 CRB-5-92-5 (September 3, 1993).

Claimant’s motion to submit additional evidence denied due to claimant’s failure to satisfy the requirements of Adm. Reg. § 31-301-9. See also, Lederman, § 31-301. Appeal procedure.

Claimant’s motion to submit additional evidence denied on the basis of Administrative Regulation § 31-301-9 and CRB’s holding in Daniele v. Angelo Monarca, Inc., 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 25, 519 CRD-3-86 (1988). Here, claimant sought to introduce into evidence the trial commissioner’s notes from an informal hearing. As claimant did in fact testify at a formal hearing below, any information claimant wished to proffer concerning her decision to delay surgery should have been introduced through her own testimony.

Claimant sought to present additional medical evidence of either testimony or a report of IME physician. CRB denied claimant’s motion as reasons why evidence was not submitted below failed to satisfy the requirements of Administrative Regulation § 31-301-9.

O’Connor v. Connecticut Light & Power Company, 1536 CRB-8-92-10 (May 27, 1993).

Motion to submit additional evidence denied where movant failed to satisfy the requirements of Administrative Regulation § 31-301-9.

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

Where there exists no explanation as to why the medical testimony sought to be proffered was not presented in the initial proceedings below, in the reopened proceedings below, why such testimony was not available to be presented below, nor does it appear to be new evidence, CRB will not disturb trier’s denial of claimant’s Motion to Submit New Evidence. See also, Boynton, § 31-275(1) and § 31-301. Factual findings.

Motion to submit additional evidence denied where movant failed to satisfy the requirements of Administrative Regulation § 31-301-9.

Claimant sought to enter additional medical evidence to support his claim for temporary total benefits. CRB denied claimant’s motion to submit additional evidence. CRB found medical evidence was not “of such character and force that it would be likely to cause a different result.” Metall v. Aluminum Co. of America, 154 Conn. 48, 53 (1966).

Lange v. J & B Excavating & Paving, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 42, 1249 CRD-3-91-6 (March 18, 1993).

Failure of claimant’s former counsel to appreciate the probative effect of live testimony by claimant’s treating physician insufficient reason for granting motion to submit additional evidence. See also, Lange, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Byars v. Whyco Chromium Company, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 39, 1257 CRD-5-91-7 (March 10, 1993), dismissed, lack of final judgment, 33 Conn. App. 667 (1994).

Affirmed trier’s denial of claimant’s request to submit new evidence as record fails to demonstrate trier abused his discretion. See also, Byars, § 31-294, § 31-296 and § 31-300.

Krouse v. Holmgren Subaru, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 37, 1251 CRD-2-91-6 (February 26, 1993).

Remanded where trial commissioner denied claimant, a car salesman, now employed as a security guard, partial wage loss benefits based on evidence before him. On appeal pro se claimant in a motion to correct and before the CRB offered evidence concerning salespersons average weekly wages contrary to evidence presented below. CRB concluded claimant should be afforded the opportunity to present the evidence and the trier must consider this new evidence before reaching a final determination. See also, Krouse, § 31-308(a).

Fitzpatrick v. Wellington’s Auto Ranch, Inc., 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 247, 1194 CRD-4-91-3 (January 11, 1993).

Claimant alleges evidence was proffered below but was not admitted by the trial commissioner. CRB denied Motion to Submit Additional Evidence holding evidence should have accompanied Motion to Correct as claimant sought to show evidence was excluded by the trial commissioner and would support corrections sought. See also, Fitzpatrick, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Lesczynski v. New Britain Memorial, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 205, 1289 CRD-6-91-9 (December 2, 1992).

Claimant claims testimony of treating physician was not presented at proceedings below as claimant failed to recognize the importance of securing counsel. CRB found claimant’s inability to appreciate the impact of not providing testimony of a treating physician in the proceedings before the trial commissioner fails to demonstrate the evidence was material or a good reason for failing to present that testimony in the proceedings before the trial commissioner. See also, Lescznyski, § 31-301. Factual findings and § 31-307.

Motion to submit additional evidence and testimony denied where movant failed to satisfy the requirements of Administrative Regulation § 31-301-9. Further, movant failed to appear before CRB at scheduled date of oral argument.

Murach v. New Britain, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 89, 1172 CRD-6-91-2 (April 20, 1992).

Motion to present additional evidence denied where claimant failed to provide good reasons why evidence was not offered below. See also, Murach, § 7-433c and § 31-294c.

Nasinka v. Ansonia Copper and Brass, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 85, 1153 CRD-5-90-12 (April 20, 1992).

CRB remanded trier’s finding with direction to grant claimant’s Motion to Reopen. Medical reports of independent medical exam ordered by trial commissioner and received subsequent to conclusion of formal hearings below must be entered into evidence. Additionally, trier cannot base his conclusions on medical reports not entered into evidence. See also, Nasinka, § 31-301. Factual findings and § 31-315.

Canfield v. Consolidated Freightways, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 59, 1125 CRD-7-90-10 (February 21, 1992).

Remanded as medical evidence proffered is of such force and character that it may result in a different conclusion. Record fails to indicate whether trial commissioner considered medical report of treating physician which was not available at the time of the trier’s decision. As trier previously based his decision on treating physician’s medical report and that same treating physician in a later medical report is now not certain that surgery is reasonable or necessary, trier must consider new evidence. See also, Canfield, § 31-294d and § 31-301. Factual findings.

Gurski v. Concessionair, Division of Delaware North, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 282, 1218 CRD-7-91-4 (December 16, 1991).

Where claimant gave CRD no reason why evidence was not available and submitted at evidentiary hearing below and CRD found evidence cumulative of other testimony, claimant’s request to submit statement of additional witness denied. See also, Gurski, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Grey v. Greenwood Health Care Center, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 266, 1062 CRD-1-90-6 (December 5, 1991).

Remanded as additional medical evidence offered is material and relevant and was not discoverable in the evidentiary proceedings below.

Sgambato v. Simkins Industries, Inc., 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 131, 825 CRD-3-89-2 (August 6, 1990).

CRD would not grant Motion to Present Additional Evidence where evidence was immaterial. See also, Sgambato, § 31-301. Factual findings. § 31-307.

Rogers v. Mitchell, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 90, 803 CRD-7-88-12 (May 14, 1990).

Commissioner accorded considerable latitude in deciding Motions to Submit Additional Evidence. See also, Rogers, § 31-275(9). See, Spataro v. Mattioli Construction, infra.

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

Motion to submit additional evidence denied where claimant failed to demonstrate materiality and was given prior opportunities to present evidence below. See also, Spataro, § 31-294d.

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

Failure to permit additional evidence was not an abuse of discretion where it is obvious the trial commissioner exhaustively reviewed the voluminous record. See also, Kroczewski, § 31-275(1).

Tanner v. Walgren Tree Experts, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 129, 748 CRD-8-88-7 (March 27, 1989).

Motion To Submit Additional Evidence denied because the poor quality of the transcript could not be expected to make a difference in the result of the case.

Murdock v. Squires, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. 64, 550 CRD-7-87 (December 1, 1988).

Affirmed trial commissioner’s ruling denying motion to present additional evidence where evidence was not new or undiscoverable with due diligence at time of original hearing.

Lindholm v. Moscowitz, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 7, 527 CRD-7-86 (August 18, 1988).

Affirmed trial commissioner’s ruling denying Motion to Present Additional Evidence where the reason for failure to present it in earlier proceedings was a failure to appear due to a mistake as to the date of the hearing.

Brusca v. Color Tech, Inc., 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 81, 50 CRD-7-81 (November 6, 1986).

Commissioner is granted considerable discretion in decisions regarding Motions to Submit Additional Evidence, therefore under Administrative Regulation § 31-301-9 it was proper to deny claimant’s motion.

Chapo v. Westport, 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 14, 170 CRD-4-82 (August 20, 1985).

Under Administrative Regulation § 31-301-9. Additional evidence will only be considered by the Compensation Review Division if material.

Woehrle v. Bridgeport, 2 Conn. Worker’s Comp. Rev. Op. 35, 175 CRD-4-82 (October 4, 1983).

Claimant not permitted to present new evidence where more than a year had passed since decision and claimant had not indicated the nature of the new evidence.

Baker v. Colt Industries, 2 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 4, 106 CRD-1-81 (May 13, 1983).