Mierzejewski v. BIC Corporation

The claimant was represented by Robert R. Sheldon, Esq., Tremont & Sheldon, P.C., 64 Lyon Terrace, Bridgeport, CT 06604.

The respondents were represented by Kevin J. Maher, Esq., Maher & Williams, 1300 Post Road, P.O. Box 550, Fairfield, CT 06430.

This Petition for Review from the February 16, 1995 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Third District was heard January 26, 1996 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Michael S. Miles and Robin L. Wilson.

OPINION

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The respondents have petitioned for review from the February 16, 1995 Finding and Award of the commissioner acting for the Third District Commissioner. In that decision, the trial commissioner found that the claimant sustained a compensable injury to her lumbar spine on November 18, 1992. In support of their appeal, the respondents contend that the conclusion that the claimant sustained a compensable injury is inconsistent with the subordinate facts found. In addition, the respondents contend that the trial commissioner improperly denied their motion to correct. We find no error on the part of the trial commissioner.

The respondents contend that the trial commissioner should not have found the claimant’s injury to be compensable because the claimant had filled out insurance forms in which she stated that her injury was not related to work. However, the record reveals that the claimant testified that this was a mistake due to her use of prescription medication. (6/27/94 Transcript at 42, 52-53). In addition, the respondents contend that because there were no witnesses to the injury, the trial commissioner erred in finding the injury to be compensable. However, there is no requirement that an injury must be observed by a witness in order to be compensable.

After thoroughly examining the record in this case, it is clear that the commissioner’s decision was dependent upon the weight and credibility which he afforded the evidence. We will not disturb conclusions which are so based. Neal v. UTC/Pratt and Whitney, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 163, 1199 CRD-8-91-3 (August 5, 1992). It was within the province of the commissioner to resolve inconsistencies or contradictions in the evidence. Miller v. Kirshner, 225 Conn. 185, 198-99 (1993); Fair v. People’s Savings Bank, 207 Conn. 535, 538-42 (1988). As the conclusions reached from the facts found did not result from incorrect applications of law or from inferences illegally or unreasonably drawn from those facts, those conclusions must stand. Fair, supra, 539.

In further support of their appeal, the respondents contend that their motion to correct should have been granted because it requests the addition of undisputed facts. In the motion to correct, the respondents seek to add findings regarding the claimant’s receipt of unemployment benefits from September of 1993 through February of 1994. During this period, the trial commissioner awarded the claimant temporary partial benefits pursuant to 31-308a. Pursuant to § 31-258, a claimant who has received unemployment compensation benefits and subsequently is awarded workers’ compensation for temporary disability for the same period “shall be liable to repay” his unemployment benefits. See Foss v. Continental Forest Industries, 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 1, 341 CRD-6-84 (March 9, 1988). Because the proposed corrections would not alter the commissioner’s conclusion, the respondents’ challenge to the denial of the motion to correct must fail. Hill v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 98, 832 CRD-7-89-3 (May 17, 1990).