Hall & Neil Kaufman, D.C. v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney

CASE NO. 2146 CRB-8-94-9

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

DECEMBER 22, 1995

WILLIE HALL

CLAIMANT-APPELLEE

and

NEIL KAUFMAN, D.C.

MEDICAL CARE PROVIDER

APPELLANT

v.

UTC/PRATT & WHITNEY

EMPLOYER

and

CIGNA PROPERTY & CASUALTY

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented by Krevolin & Feinstein, 21 Woodland Street, Suite 322, Hartford, CT 06105, who did not appear at oral argument.

The medical care provider appeared on his own behalf.

The respondents were represented by Lucas Strunk, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton & Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Blvd., Glastonbury, CT 06033.

This Petition for Review from the September 12, 1994 Determination of the Ad Hoc Dispute Resolution Panel was heard May 19, 1995 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Roberta Smith Tracy and Amado J. Vargas.

OPINION

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The medical care provider, Neil Kaufman, D.C., has filed a petition for review from the September 12, 1994 decision of the Ad Hoc Dispute Resolution Panel. In that decision, the panel determined that “with regard to the disputed bill in this case, reasonable and customary treatment is seven visits at $60 dollars per visit, plus $80 dollars for a lumbo-sacral support brace, totaling $500 dollars.” In support of his appeal, Kaufman argues that all sixteen of his medical visits with the claimant constituted reasonable and customary treatment.

We will first address the respondents’ motion to dismiss. The respondents contend that the appeal should be dismissed due to Kaufman’s failure to file a motion to correct or a legal brief. We disagree. As there was no transcript of the proceedings before the Ad Hoc Dispute Resolution Panel, and as the decision did not set forth findings of fact, the claimant was arguably unable to file a motion to correct. See §31-301-4. Moreover, we consider the claimant’s letter dated April 12, 1995 to constitute his legal brief. Accordingly, the respondents’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute is denied.

This board has held that we will not decide a matter where “through inadvertence, or otherwise, the facts have not been sufficiently found to render a just judgment.” Charette v. Jensen Mobile Home, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 1, 936 CRD-6-89-11 (March 19, 1991) (citation omitted). In the instant case, the panel’s decision does not contain any findings of fact, nor does it state a reason for the conclusion that only seven of the sixteen office visits are reasonable and customary. Accordingly, we are unable to properly review the panel’s decision. See Charette, supra. Therefore, we are remanding this case in order for a de novo formal hearing to be held by a new panel pursuant to §31-280-3.

Commissioners Roberta Smith Tracy and Amado J. Vargas concur.