Ventresca v. Pathmark/Supermarkets General Corp.

The claimant was represented by Jessica L. Braus, Esq., Glass & Braus, 125 Main Street, Suite 442, P. O. Box 265, Westport, CT 06881-0265.

The respondent was represented by James T. Baldwin, Esq., and Michael L. Tierney, Esq., Cotter, Cotter & Sohon, P.C., P.O. Box 5660, Bayview Station, Bridgeport, CT 06610.

This Petition for Review from the February 4, 1993 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner for the Fourth District was heard March 11, 1994 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of Commissioners George A. Waldron, Angela L. dos Santos and Nancy A. Brouillet.

OPINION

GEORGE A. WALDRON, COMMISSIONER. The claimant challenges the conclusion of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District “[t]hat the claimant has failed to meet her burden of proving that her cervical spine condition is causally related to an injury which occurred at work on March 11, 1988.” The claimant contends that the commissioner’s decision is not supported by the evidence and is based on unreasonable or impermissible factual inferences. We disagree.

The claimant’s appeal challenges the weight which the trial commissioner gave to the differing opinions of the several expert medical witnesses. Two medical witnesses related the claimant’s neck problems to the March 11, 1988 injury. Two medical witnesses opined that the problem with the claimant’s cervical spine was not causally connected to the work injury of March 11, 1988. Additionally, the neck injury was not documented in certain medical records until long after the date of the compensable injury.

“Because we do not retry the facts, it was within the province of the trial commissioner to resolve any . . . inconsistencies or contradictions in the evidence. See Miller v. Kirshner, 225 Conn. 185, 198-99 (1993); State v. Sherbacow, 21 Conn. App. 474, 479-80, cert. denied, 216 Conn, 808 (1990); State v. Sesler, 33 Conn. Sup. 747, 751, cert. denied, 172 Conn. 702 (1976).” Pinto v. B.C. Hardware Superior Products, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 210, 211-12, 1351 CRD-6-91-12 (1993). “In cases such as this where medical [evidence] is in conflict, as long as there is evidence to support it, the trier’s conclusion must stand. We can only disturb [a commissioner’s] conclusions when they are without evidence, contrary to law or based on impermissible or unreasonable factual inferences. Fair v. People’s Savings Bank, 207 Conn, 535 (1988); Rivera v. Guida’s Dairy, 167 Conn. 524 (1975); Wheat v. Red Star Espress Lines, 156 Conn. 245 (1968). ‘[This tribunal’s] review is not a de novo review. While we may have reached an entirely different conclusion as to the issues raised . . . the conclusions reached are supported by the evidence and not contrary to law . . . .’” Pulcinella v. Prudential Insurance Co., 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 251, 252, 1236 CRD-6-91-5 (1993), quoting Deleon v. Dunkin Donuts, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 39, 42, 1113 CRD-3-90-9 (1992).