Source: https://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/2015/5906crb.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:08:01+00:00

Document:
The claimant was represented by David J. Morrissey, Esq., Morrissey, Morrissey & Mooney, LLC, 203 Church Street, Naugatuck, CT 06770.
The respondent was represented by Michael V. Vocalina, Esq., Cotter, Cotter & Mullins, LLC, 6515 Main Street, Suite 10, Trumbull, CT 06611.
This Petition for Review1 from the January 6, 2014 Findings and Orders and the April 7, 2014 Amended Findings and Orders of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District was heard September 26, 2014 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Michelle D. Truglia and Daniel E. Dilzer.
JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The issue in this case is as to whether a claimant’s right to obtain benefits under § 7-433c C.G.S. terminates on the date he or she leaves the employment of a police or fire department.2 The claimant filed for heart and hypertension benefits a few weeks after leaving the employment of the respondent Milford Police Department. The trial commissioner concluded that he filed a timely claim and awarded the claimant benefits under § 7-433c C.G.S. The respondent has appealed this award, arguing the statute limits benefits to a claimant who sustained a disability while employed as a police officer or a firefighter. We find the trial commissioner appropriately applied the law as interpreted by recent appellate precedent. Therefore we affirm the Amended Findings and Orders herein.
The record herein is somewhat different than what we have addressed in previous appeals of § 7-433c C.G.S. awards. The trial commissioner in her original Findings and Orders, dated January 6, 2014, denied the claimant’s bid for benefits. As the trial commissioner incorporated the factual findings in her Amended Findings and Orders we will review the facts found in the original Findings and Orders. The commissioner found the claimant was employed by the Milford Police Department from October 5, 1987 to February 17, 2012 when he retired under a years of service pension. The claimant’s last day of work was February 2, 2012 and he utilized unused vacation time to extend his service until February 17, 2012. On February 13, 2012 he started a new job as a campus police officer for Sacred Heart University. On February 24, 2012 the claimant sustained a myocardial infarction while shoveling his driveway. He was transported to St. Vincent’s Hospital and had a stent inserted, and later underwent bypass surgery on April 9, 2012. The angiogram performed the day of the myocardial infarction indicated the claimant had severe coronary artery disease that affected four major arteries. The claimant testified that during his career with the Milford Police Department he had never been told by a physician that he had heart disease or hypertension and was not aware he had heart disease in January of 2012.3 He also testified that he had never been disabled from working during his career with the Milford police due to heart disease or hypertension.
The claimant’s cardiologist testified via a deposition. Dr. Victor Mejia testified that the claimant’s coronary artery disease was a chronic disease that developed over a period of years. The claimant suffered from heart disease not only on the date of his myocardial infarction but also on January 30, 2012, his claimed date of injury. Dr. Mejia opined that it was reasonably medically probable that the percentage of the claimant’s blockages had not changed dramatically after the date the claimant left his employment with the Milford police, as it was reasonable and probable the disease developed over a period of years. The claimant’s heart disease was a substantial factor in his myocardial infarction, as was the stress of snow shoveling. Dr. Mejia was unaware of any symptom of coronary artery disease present in the claimant before February 24, 2012. Dr. Mejia opined, based on his diagnosis of the claimant, that the claimant qualified for a disability rating to his heart as of January 2012; but had no evidence that the claimant’s heart functioning was impaired at all in January 2012.
The claimant testified that he had concerns as to possibly having coronary artery disease in 2003 as it runs in his family. After discussion with a primary care doctor the claimant was examined by Dr. Clifford Kramer, a cardiologist, on July 28, 2003. Dr. Kramer reported recommending a diet and exercise program for the claimant, finding his lipid profile acceptable, and directed that the claimant undergo a stress test. The claimant underwent a stress test on August 19, 2003 that Dr. Kramer read as “clinically and electrocardiographically negative.” Findings, ¶ 12.
Based on these facts the trial commissioner concluded in the Findings and Orders issued January 6, 2014 that the claimant was credible and persuasive. She found he was neither diagnosed or treated for coronary artery disease until February 24, 2012, therefore the notice of claim for §7-433c C.G.S. was filed in a timely manner.4 The commissioner concluded Dr. Mejia was credible and persuasive except for his opinion that the claimant qualified for a disability rating for his heart in January 2012. The commissioner found this opinion speculative at best. In the January Findings and Orders, in Conclusion, ¶ E, the trial commissioner concluded that in order to receive benefits under § 7-433c C.G.S. the claimant’s heart condition and the resulting disability had to be suffered while he was a member of the Milford Police Department. She concluded that while the claimant’s disease was present while he was a member of the Milford police, he did not sustain any disability from that condition until he left their employ. Since he had not been disabled while employed by the Milford police, the commissioner concluded he did not meet the statutory requirements for an award under § 7-433c C.G.S.
The Claimant’s longstanding heart disease was a significant contributing factor in causing his heart attack.
Despite the fact that the Claimant was not disabled from his work as a police officer with the City of Milford due to his coronary artery disease (or due to the February 24, 2012 myocardial infarction) in January 2012, he had developed a condition during his tenure as a police officer with the City of Milford that could spawn a claim for monetary benefits in the future.
While proof of a disability is a prerequisite to the actual collection of benefits, one need not be disabled before being required to notify one’s employer of an accidental injury and to file a claim within one year of that injury.
The Claimant is entitled to all benefits under C.G.S. Section 7-433c, subject to the lawful limitations of C.G.S. Section 7-433b.
The respondent raises a number of issues on appeal: a) whether the claim herein met the statutory criteria to award benefits under § 7-433c C.G.S.? b) Whether the claim was timely under the term of § 7-433c C.G.S.? and c) was the Motion for Reconsideration properly considered by the trial commissioner? We have reviewed each issue and we are not persuaded that the trial commissioner committed error. On appeal, we generally extend deference to the decisions made by the trial commissioner. “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). Nonetheless, while we must provide deference to the decision of a trial commissioner, we may reverse such a decision if the commissioner did not properly apply the law or reached a decision unsupported by the evidence on the record. Christensen v. H & L Plastics Co., Inc., 5171 CRB-3-06-12 (November 19, 2007).
We find that essentially this case turns on how the courts have interpreted the heart and hypertension statute. Without undertaking an extensive review of the precedential history of appellate decisions over the past decades, it is fair to say that there have been shifting standards in place as to what facts a claimant needed to prove in order to establish a timely claim under the statute. The trial commissioner’s original Findings and Orders were challenged by the claimant as not properly applying the current status of the law. As the claimant viewed the situation, the Appellate Court’s decision in, Arborio, supra, changed the standard for eligibility and the trial commissioner incorrectly applied an outdated interpretation of the law. When presented with a Motion for Reconsideration the trial commissioner concurred in this view and amended the Findings and Orders. We must determine if this was a reasonable interpretation of the law.
We note that the respondent has alleged the trial commissioner erred in even considering the Motion for Reconsideration. The respondent argues that since such a Motion is not enumerated within our regulations or within Chapter 568 that consideration of this motion was inconsistent with the principle that the Workers’ Compensation Commission is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction and is strictly limited in how it may address disputes. The respondent cites Jones v. Town of Redding, 5223 CRB-7-07-4 (October 15, 2008), aff’d, 296 Conn. 352 (2010) for this position, arguing it stands for the position that a Finding cannot be reopened. We are not persuaded, in part because we found in Jones the dispute centered upon whether the respondents were prevented from contesting the issue of subject matter jurisdiction by “fraud, accident, mistake, surprise or improper management of the opposite party.” Id. In the present matter both parties litigated the issue of jurisdiction and the claimant believed the trial commissioner relied on an erroneous legal standard. Prior to bringing this to our attention, by way of an appeal to the Compensation Review Board, the claimant chose to file a post-judgment motion to bring this to the trial commissioner’s attention. We also note that pursuant to § 31-298 C.G.S., a trial commissioner is empowered with great latitude to conduct a hearing in a manner that “is best calculated to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties and carry out the provisions and intent of this chapter.”7 The respondent was given an opportunity to object to the Motion for Reconsideration, so therefore we do not find their rights to due process were prejudiced. In light of our statutory obligation to address the substantive rights of the parties in a disputed claim, we find no error from the trial commissioner’s consideration of the Motion for Reconsideration.
The central issue raised by the respondent in this appeal is essentially that the trial commissioner’s original Findings and Orders correctly interpreted the law and the Amended Findings and Orders incorrectly interpreted the law. As the respondent views the law the claimant’s reliance on Arborio, supra, is unwarranted as there is binding precedent on this issue which is on point and supports the trial commissioner’s original position. They cite Gorman v. Waterbury, 4 Conn. App. 226 (1985) as standing for the proposition that unless a claimant is disabled with a cardiac illness or hypertension while employed as a police officer or fire fighter they lack standing to receive an award under § 7-433c C.G.S. Since the claimant was already retired from the Milford police department at the time he filed his claim, and since he had sustained no disability while employed, they believe there is no jurisdiction to award the claimant benefits.
Our research indicates that Gorman has not been repudiated by our Appellate or Supreme Court; but a close reading of the facts in that case suggests that Arborio and the contemporary touchstone case on the heart and hypertension law, Ciarlelli v. Hamden, 299 Conn. 265 (2010), that these cases have more weight and have limited the precedent in Gorman. In Gorman the claimant had been employed as a police officer for many years and suffered from a hypertensive condition from 1967 until his death on September 7, 1972. The claimant retired as a police officer on October 30, 1971 for unrelated reasons and the hypertension had no disabling impact on his ability to perform his job. The surviving spouse sought § 7-433c C.G.S. benefits after her husband’s death. Id., 230. The Appellate Court ruled this claim was not valid as “[a] fair reading of the statute, however, reveals that both the condition of hypertension or heart disease and the death or disability resulting from such a condition must be suffered while the individual was on or off duty as a regular member of a police or fire department.” Id., 231-232. (Emphasis in original.). The opinion further noted that “[u]nlike a police officer on active status, the plaintiff’s husband could not have been injured in the line of duty because he was retired.” Id. Since the claimant did not die or suffer any disability from his heart disease while employed as a police officer, there was no statutory basis to award benefits under § 7-433c C.G.S. Id., 233.
On factual grounds, we note that had the scenario in Gorman presented itself today, it most likely would have led to a dismissal of the claim, but for totally different reasons based on the precedent in Arborio and Ciarlelli. Since the claimant in Gormanappeared to have had scienter of his hypertensive condition for well over a year prior to his retirement, and failed to put the respondent on notice within the one year period under § 31-294c(a) C.G.S. he would be seeking benefits under § 7-433c C.G.S., any claim for benefits subsequent to retirement would have been time barred.8 See Arborio, supra, 188, and Ciarlelli, supra, 294.
The primary reason that the Appellate Court upheld dismissal of the claim in Gorman, and that the respondent seeks to overturn the award in this case, is that the claimant did not sustain any disability while employed. See Appellant’s Brief, p. 4. The claimant in this case successfully convinced the trial commissioner that subsequent to Arborio a claimant no longer needed to sustain a disability due to heart disease or hypertension in order to present a valid claim for § 7-433c C.G.S. benefits. This interpretation of law is consistent with the current appellate precedent governing § 7-433c C.G.S.
In Arborio the Appellate Court specifically determined that a claimant who sustained an injury from heart disease or hypertension but had not sustained a disability from this injury was obligated to file a timely notice of claim. “We affirm our holding in Pearce [76 Conn. App. 441 (2003] and do not agree with the plaintiff’s statement that ‘[p]roof of a disability is a jurisdictional requirement [to filing a claim].’ (Emphasis in original.)” Id., 177. “Certainly, proof of a disability is a prerequisite to the actual collection of benefits, but one need not be disabled before being required to notify one’s employer of an accidental injury and to file a claim within one year of that injury.” Id. In Arborio the Appellate Court further noted that this required a formal notice that the claimant would seek benefits in the future from a presently non-disabling cardiac injury.
However, pursuant to § 31-294c(a), the employee not only must notify his employer of the accident, but he also must file a claim for benefits within one year of the date of the accident. Failure to file such a claim results in a jurisdictional bar, unless the failure to file a claim within one year of the date of the accident is saved pursuant to one of the provisions found in § 31-294c(c).
When the Supreme Court issued their opinion in Ciarlelli, supra, they reiterated this position. Citing Arborio, the Supreme Court specifically quoted the passages in that opinion we previously referenced Ciarlelli, supra, 294. The decision further focused on what, in the absence of a disability, constituted the “injury” that triggered a time limitation to seek benefits. “Because General Statutes § 7-433c (a) provides for an award of benefits to an otherwise eligible claimant who ‘suffers . . . any condition or impairment of health caused by hypertension or heart disease resulting in his death or his . . . disability,’ it stands to reason that a formal diagnosis of hypertension or heart disease, communicated to an employee by his or her physician, constitutes the ‘injury’ that triggers the running of the limitation period of § 31-294c.” Id., 298-299.
Therefore, the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court in the past decade have interpreted § 7-433c C.G.S. in a fashion where the presence of “any condition or impairment of health caused by hypertension or heart disease”, id., 298, created the triggering point to file a claim for benefits while the claimant must await “his death or his temporary or permanent, total or partial disability”, id., fn2, resulting from that injury so as to collect benefits. To the extent Gorman stands for a different proposition, the decisions in Arborio and Ciarlelli stand for the position it is no longer the controlling precedent.
In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the one year limitation period for claims under § 7-433c begins to run only when an employee is informed by a medical professional that he or she has been diagnosed with hypertension. In many respects, this simply represents a return to the standard that the board applied prior to Pearce, which, in our view, more faithfully adhered to the statutory definition of accidental injury in view of the fact that, as a general matter, a formal diagnosis of hypertension can be definitely located in time and place. Thus, although the issue of when the limitation period of § 31-294c begins to run in any given case remains a question of fact for a workers’ compensation commissioner, evidence that an employee merely knew of past elevated blood pressure readings, or was advised by his or her physician to make certain lifestyle changes in response thereto, is not sufficient to trigger the limitation period in the absence of evidence that the employee formally had been diagnosed with hypertension by a medical professional and advised of that diagnosis.
The evidence presented by the claimant in this case was that while he was employed as a police officer he sustained an injury within the terms of the statute, and that this was not an injury sustained after his retirement from the police. He filed his claim for benefits within one year of that injury. In light of precedent since Gorman, we cannot now conclude that an otherwise viable and timely claim for § 7-433c C.G.S. benefits is barred by the intervening retirement of the claimant.
Therefore, we affirm the Amended Findings and Orders.

References: V. 
 § 7
 § 7
 § 7
 §7
 § 7
 § 7
 § 7
 § 7
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 31
 v. 
 § 7
 v. 
 § 7
 § 7
 § 31
 § 7
 § 7
 § 7
 § 31
 § 31
 § 7
 § 31
 § 7
 § 7
 § 31
 § 7