Jarema v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney

The claimant was represented by Jonathan Gould, Esq., 557 Prospect Ave., Hartford, CT 06105-2922, who did not file a brief or appear at oral argument.

The employer and CIGNA Property & Casualty were represented by Jason Dodge, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton & Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Blvd., Glastonbury, CT 06033-4412.

The employer and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. were represented by Nancy S. Rosenbaum, Esq., P.O. Box 695, 655 Winding Brook Dr., Glastonbury, CT 06033, who did not file a brief or appear at oral argument.

This Petition for Review from the May 24, 1994 Denial of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss of the Commissioner acting for the Eighth District was heard August 25, 1995 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Roberta Smith Tracy and Michael S. Miles.

OPINION

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The employer and its insurer CIGNA Property & Casualty (“respondents”) have petitioned for review from the May 24, 1994 Denial of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss issued by the Commissioner acting for the Eighth District. The respondents contend on appeal that the commissioner improperly failed to grant their Motion to Dismiss. In support of the Motion to Dismiss, the respondents contend that the claimant failed to give notice of his claim for an alleged lower back injury as required by § 31-294 C.G.S. within one year of the date of the alleged injury.

The trial commissioner granted the respondents’ Motion for Articulation on June 8, 1994. In that ruling the trial commissioner stated: “Motion to Dismiss based on statute of limitations, C.G.S., 31-294, denied because there is evidence that claimant received medical care from the employer for the injury within 1 year of the date of the 3/1/90 injury.” However, the trial commissioner did not issue any findings of fact regarding the timeliness of the claimant’s notice of claim or regarding the furnishing of medical care.

Section 31-294 provides in part that “[f]ailure to provide a notice of claim under subsection (a) of this section shall not bar maintenance of the proceedings if . . . within the applicable period an employee has been furnished, for the injury with respect to which compensation is claimed, with medical or surgical care as provided in section 31-294d.” The respondents contend that they did not furnish the claimant with medical care for his alleged lower back injury within the meaning of § 31-294.

“No case under this Act should be finally determined when the...court, is of the opinion that, 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, 3, 936 CRD-6-89-11 (March 19, 1991) (quoting Cormican v. McMahon, 102 Conn. 234, 238 (1925)). Moreover, “(t)his Board is powerless to perform any meaningful review under General Statutes § 31-301 without a record or transcript of evidence of the proceedings.” Hebert v. RWA Roofing & Sheet Metal, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 43, 44, 1750 CRB-2-93-6 (Dec. 6, 1994) (citations omitted). As the commissioner did not make any findings of fact in the instant case and no transcript has been provided, we are unable to adequately review the respondents’ appeal. Therefore, we will remand this matter to the trial commissioner to issue a decision, including findings of fact, regarding the timeliness of the claimant’s notice of claim.