Paradis v. Arnco Sign Company et al.

CASE NO. 3773 CRB-08-98-02

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

SEPTEMBER 22, 1999

DONALD PARADIS

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

ARNCO SIGN COMPANY

EMPLOYER

and

CNA INSURANCE CO.

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

and

MERIDEN AUTO BODY

EMPLOYER

and

PEERLESS INSURANCE CO.

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

and

NELIGON’S AUTO CENTER

EMPLOYER

and

THE HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant appeared on his own behalf.

The respondent Arnco Sign Company and CNA Insurance were represented by Diane Lord, Esq., Law Offices of Grant Miller, Jr., 29 South Main Street, West Hartford, CT 06107-2445.

The respondents Meriden Auto Body and Peerless Insurance were represented by Dominic Statile, Esq., Montstream & May, 655 Winding Brook Drive, P. O. Box 1087, Glastonbury, CT 06033, who did not appear at oral argument.

The respondents Neligon’s Auto Center and The Hartford Insurance Group were represented by Joseph Skelly, Esq., Edward Henfey & Associates, 55 Farmington Ave., Suite 500, Hartford, CT 06105, who did not appear at oral argument.

This Petition for Review from the February 3, 1998 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Eighth District was heard February 26, 1999 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Stephen B. Delaney and John A. Mastropietro.

OPINION

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has petitioned for review from the February 3, 1998 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Eighth District. In that decision the trial commissioner concluded that the claimant suffered compensable injuries to his back, neck, and arms due to repetitive trauma while employed by the respondent Arnco Sign Company. In support of his appeal, the claimant seeks payment of unpaid medical bills, including those for chiropractic treatment and physical therapy.

Because the trial commissioner did not make any findings regarding these medical bills, we are unable to review this issue on appeal. “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) (citation omitted). In the instant case, at oral argument before this board, the claimant was advised to request a hearing at the District level regarding his contention that the respondents had not paid for authorized medical treatment.

The trial commissioner’s decision is affirmed.

Commissioners Stephen B. Delaney and John A. Mastropietro concur.