Source: https://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/2008/5215crb.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 21:42:28+00:00

Document:
Stevens v. Raymark Industries, Inc. et al.
The respondents Raymark Industries, Inc., and Zurich North America were represented by Brian L. Smith, Esq., D’Attelo, Shields, La Bella & Smith, 500 Enterprise Drive, Suite 4B, Rocky Hill, CT 06067.
The Second Injury Fund was represented by Philip Schulz, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120.
The respondents Mohegan Auto Parts and Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association were represented by Michael Finn, Esq., and Matthew Necci, Esq., Montstream & May, LLP, 655 Winding Brook Drive, P.O. Box 1087, Glastonbury, CT 06033-6087.
This Petition for Review from the March 14, 2007 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District was heard October 19, 2007 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Amado J. Vargas and Scott A. Barton.
JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. This appeal concerns a claim for § 31-306 C.G.S. benefits sought by the widow of a former employee of Raymark Industries. The decedent, James Stevens, had been awarded benefits in 1989 for a compensable injury he suffered while in Raymark’s employ. Mr. Stevens died in 2000 and his widow pursued the present action. The trial commissioner awarded her benefits finding that the claimant’s employment (where he had been exposed to asbestos) was a substantial factor in the illness that led to the claimant’s death. The commissioner found the respondent’s insurance carrier, Zurich North America (“Zurich”), responsible for this award, and determined neither a subsequent employer nor the Second Injury Fund (the “Fund”) should be held responsible for the § 31-306 C.G.S. claim. The commissioner denied the Fund’s motion for reimbursement from Zurich for the amount paid earlier to the decedent for his earlier claim. Both Zurich and the Fund have appealed.1 We uphold the trial commissioner’s Finding and Award on the merits of the claimant’s case. We remand this matter for additional hearings on the issue of whether the Fund is barred from seeking reimbursement from Zurich for funds paid the decedent.
Following a formal hearing held on February 10, 2006 and April 12, 2006, which closed upon the submission of briefs on November 30, 2006, the trial commissioner found the following facts in his Finding and Award of March 14, 2007. The commissioner took notice of the circumstances of the decedent’s original claim and the respondent’s subsequent bankruptcy. Findings, ¶¶ 1-11. The trial commissioner found that the decedent died on April 15, 2000 and the death certificate listed ventricular arrhythmia, myocardial infarction and coronary artery disease as the immediate causes of death. It also listed, “Other Significant Conditions: Conditions Contributing to Death But Not Related to Cause:” as asbestos and nicotine use. Findings, ¶¶ 12-13. Prior to his death the decedent was examined by his treating physician on March 26, 1999,2 and his physician diagnosed “obstructive airways disease with interstitial fibrotic change and mild clinical deterioration,” An April 12, 1999 CT scan of the claimant noted “end stage chronic interstitial fibrosis.” Findings, ¶¶ 14-15.
The claimant’s spouse Pamela Stevens was married to the decedent at the time of his death. She filed her Form 30C on May 10, 2000 seeking funeral expenses and dependency benefits. She remarried on June 18, 2004. Findings, ¶¶ 16-18.
The trial commissioner noted that after claimant left his employment at Raymark in 1979 the he worked at Mohegan Auto Parts. He also noted that no Form 30C had ever been filed against Mohegan.
Based on those subordinate facts the trial commissioner took administrative notice of the March 14, 1989 Finding and Award for the decedent; wherein he was awarded permanent partial disability benefits due to his asbestos exposure at Raymark. The commissioner noted that Raymark was the only participant in that hearing and the commissioner found the decedent’s last exposure to asbestos was when he worked for Raymark in 1979. He further found that the Fund had paid a total of $60,494.15 to the decedent as a result of Raymark’s bankruptcy and failure to pay the 1989 award. While the trial commissioner found that Raymark had insurance coverage through Zurich for the decedent’s claim, he denied the Fund’s motion for reimbursement for the funds advanced due to the precedent in Stickney v. Sunlight Construction, 248 Conn. 754 (1999).
The trial commissioner did award survivor’s benefits to the dependent widow as he found and concluded that the claimant’s spouse sustained her burden of proof that the claimant’s asbestos related pulmonary disease was a significant factor in the cause of his death. He determined that Mohegan had no responsibility for this claim; and thus determined Zurich was solely responsible for the awarded survivor’s benefits.
Both Zurich and the Fund appealed from this award. Zurich appealed on the basis that the trial commissioner improperly determined the claimant’s spouse had met her burden of proof that the decedent’s death was caused by his exposure to asbestos. Zurich also challenged the finding that they were a responsible insurer, claiming that it was the “law of the case” that Raymark was self-insured. They also challenge the commissioner’s findings that Mohegan was not responsible for the award, claiming the evidence demonstrated the claimant was exposed to asbestos subsequent to 1979. The Fund appealed the denial of their motion for reimbursement, arguing that Stickney, supra, was inapplicable to this case.
We note that neither appellant has filed a Motion to Correct in this matter. As a result, pursuant to Corcoran v. Amgraph Packaging, Inc., 4819 CRB-2-04-6, 4948 CRB-2-05-5 (July 26, 2006) and Crochiere v. Board of Education, 227 Conn. 333, 347 (1993), we must accept the validity of the facts found by the trial commissioner, and that this board is limited to reviewing how the commissioner applied the law. See Admin. Reg. § 31-301-4.
Even had Zurich filed a Motion to Correct, we believe the trial commissioner had a sound basis for his award of survivor benefits in the instant matter. We do not share the appellant’s opinion that the basis of the commissioner’s decision (a death certificate and reports from the treating physician) is akin to the evidence that the Appellate Court deemed inadequate in DiNuzzo v. Dan Perkins Chevrolet Geo, 99 Conn. App. 336 (2007). In DiNuzzo, supra, the key witness’s testimony was deemed “grounded in speculation or conjecture” when it was apparent that witness failed to consider such relevant issues such as the decedent’s prescribed medication. As a result, the Appellate Court determined “it was not possible to determine with any reasonable degree of probability the cause of the decedent’s death given the factual gaps in the record.” Id., 344-346.
We find the evidence presented was definitive in nature. The death certificate clearly stated that asbestosis was a “significant condition” “contributing to death.” We pointed out in Voronuk v. Electric Boat Corporation, 5167 CRB-8-06-12 (January 17, 2008) that “significant” is a synonym for “substantial,” citing McDonough v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., 204 Conn. 104 (1987). We also note that the death certificate is an official state document. In Samaoya v. William Gallagher, 4951 CRB-7-05-6 (April 26, 2006), aff’d, 102 Conn. App. 670 (2007), we pointed out a trial commissioner may place greater credence on official records than testimony from witnesses challenging such documents. The test in Dixon v. United Illuminating Co., 57 Conn. App. 51 (2000) is not whether a work related condition is the sole cause of injury, it is the claimant’s burden to prove it is among the “substantial contributing factors.” Id., n7. The trial commissioner had probative evidence that he chose to rely on that clearly stated asbestosis significantly contributed to the decedent’s death.
We also note that the trial commissioner specifically acknowledged a radiology report which stated the claimant suffered from “end stage chronic interstitial fibrosis.” Claimant’s Exhibit A, pp. 5-6. The report from Lawrence and Memorial Hospital’s Emergency Department pronouncing the claimant dead noted specifically “[t]here is no known history of cardiac disease. . . .” Claimant’s Exhibit A, p. 21. “As with any discretionary action of the trial court, appellate review requires every reasonable presumption in favor of the action, and the ultimate issue for us is whether the trial court could have reasonably concluded as it did.” Daniels v. Alander, 268 Conn. 320, 330 (2004). We note that the respondents acknowledge that the underlying illness of asbestosis was a compensable injury. The claimant presented evidence from which the trial commissioner reasonably could have determined asbestosis was a substantial contributing factor in the decedent’s death and “it is the trial commissioner’s function to assess the weight and credibility of medical reports and testimony. . . .” O’Reilly v. General Dynamics Corp., 52 Conn. App. 813, 818 (1999).
Zurich also argues that the bankruptcy stay against Raymark limits the recovery of the claimant to the Second Injury Fund. We believe that there is no statutory basis under chapter 568 for a solvent insurer to utilize the insolvency of its insured to shield itself from claims, and hence, we find this argument unmeritorious.
We also reject the argument presented that a conclusive “law of the case” exists that Raymark was self-insured for this risk, thus absolving Zurich of liability. Such a determination presumes that this question was previously litigated by a prior tribunal. Our examination of the record indicates that all parties proceeded under the assumption that Raymark’s employees were all covered by self-insurance. Zurich has conceded further investigation proved it did insure certain Raymark employees. The Fund did not become involved with this claim until after the bankruptcy of Raymark, and were not parties to the 1989 Finding and Award. Claimant’s Exhibit E. Therefore, there was no prior finding of fact on this issue and hence, no law of the case. See Waterbury v. Waterbury, 85 Conn. App. 480 (2004), “[w]here a matter has previously been ruled upon interlocutorily, the court in a subsequent proceeding in the case may treat that decision as the law of the case. Id., 489.
We do find error on the trial commissioner’s part on the issue of whether the Fund can seek reimbursement from Zurich for the 1989 award to the decedent. The trial commissioner ruled such a reimbursement was barred by the precedent in Stickney v. Sunlight Construction, Inc., 248 Conn. 754 (1999). We do not believe this precedent to be applicable to claims by the Second Injury Fund; hence, we remand this issue for further proceedings.
As a result, we believe the trial commissioner improperly applied the law when he determined Stickney barred an order of reimbursement to the Fund for their payment of the 1989 award. We vacate the dismissal of this claim and remand the issue for additional hearings.
We are not unmindful, however, of Zurich’s argument that since the determination of liability for the decedent’s injuries occurred nearly two decades ago that there are issues of equity in seeking reimbursement at this late date. In Kalinowski v. Meriden, 5028 CRB-8-05-11 (January 24, 2007), we discussed the jurisprudential foundation of this concept.
“The principle that the passage of time can preclude relief has deep roots in our law.” City of Sherill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197, 217 (2005). The U.S. Supreme Court recently provided guidance as to when a claim should be barred by laches in Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 379 (2004). Justice Kennedy held in the majority opinion, ‘[l]aches might bar a petition for a writ of mandamus if the petitioner ‘slept upon his rights . . . and especially if the delay has been prejudicial to the [other party], or to the rights of other persons’ Chapman v. County of Douglas, 107 U.S. 348, 355 (1883).” Id.
Since a determination as to whether a party has been prejudiced due to an opposing party’s lapse of time is inherently a fact driven exercise Tinaco Plaza, LLC v. Freebob’s, Inc., 74 Conn. App. 760, 776 (2003); we defer to the factual findings of the trial commissioner after a new evidentiary hearing to determine whether the Fund’s claim for reimbursement can overcome the equitable defenses advanced by Zurich.
Therefore we affirm the trial commissioner’s Finding and Award except as it applies to the issue of reimbursement by Zurich of the amounts advanced under the 1989 award back to the Fund. We remand that issue for further hearings.

References: v. 
 § 31
 § 31
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 31
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.