Source: https://connecticut.lexroll.com/algiere-v-norwich-free-academy-no-4775-crb-2-04-1-4-27-2005/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:08:54+00:00

Document:
The claimant was represented by Amy M. Stone, Esq., O’Brien, Shafner, Stuart, Kelly Morris, P.C., 475 Bridge Street, P.O. Drawer 929, Groton, CT 06340.
The respondent employer and insurer were represented at the trial level and initially on appeal by Mark H. Pearson, Esq., Mullen McGourty, 60 Trumbull Street, New Haven, CT 06510. Attorney Pearson was replaced on appeal by Robert Bystrowski, Esq., Morrison Mahoney LLP, One Constitution Plaza, 10th Floor, Hartford, CT 06103.
This appeal arises from the January 5, 2004 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Second District. The only issue on appeal is whether the trial commissioner erred in failing to award the claimant §31-308(a) benefits for the period between January 2, 2002 to November 24, 2002. While the claimant underwent a number of consultations and examinations in relation to her claim for benefits we have limited our discussion to those factual circumstances we believe pertinent.
In January 2000 the claimant underwent surgery on her left hand. Initially she experienced improvement. On February 28, 2000 Dr. Cherry noted claimant’s complaints as to her left hand and right elbow. Dr. Cherry informed the claimant she could return to work but should refrain from such tasks as recycling clay and throwing pots. As these tasks were significant components of claimant’s work tasks, Dr. Cherry opined, “it was medically probable that she would not be able to return to those work duties.” Finding ¶ 26.
On November 27, 2001, the claimant was examined by Dr. Ashmead who opined the claimant suffered from bilateral wrist and CMC joint degeneration with her left hand being more problematic. Dr. Ashmead recommended tendon suspension arthroplasty. In a follow up visit, Dr. Ashmead indicated the claimant’s degenerative problem with her thumbs was not work related but was a “condition [that] is sufficiently common in women of her age bracket that even her hand-intensive work may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the development of arthritis.” See Finding ¶ 39. Claimant testified she was unable to provide Dr. Ashmead with specific details of her job. Finding ¶ 40.
Dr. Arons opined that claimant’s work activities were 50% responsible for the degenerative arthritis in her thumbs and that she was not at maximum medical improvement. On or about April 11, 2003 the claims adjuster informed Dr. Arons that she had not authorized his examination of the claimant. Dr. Arons was ultimately authorized to be the claimant’s treating physician and on May 21, 2003 again evaluated the claimant. He noted claimant was experiencing pain from her forearms into her elbows. He diagnosed the claimant as suffering a cumulative trauma disorder of her upper extremities along with her carpal tunnel syndrome and arthritis. On August 21, 2003 Dr. Arons operated on claimant’s left thumb at which time she was deemed totally disabled.
On July 31, 2003 an order for § 31-308a was issued for 30.82 weeks of benefits starting on May 28, 2001. No appeal was taken of this order, nor were benefits paid. The trial commissioner ordered the respondent’s to pay penalties pursuant to § 31-303 on the basis of respondent’s failure to pay § 31-308a benefits ordered July 31, 2003. The trial commissioner also concluded in his January 5, 2004 Finding and Award, inter alia, that the respondents pay temporary partial benefits pursuant to § 31-308(a) benefits from November 25, 2002 through August 21, 2003 based upon claimant’s earnings at Three Rivers Community College. However, the trial commissioner failed to award these benefits for the period from January 2, 2002 to November 24, 2002.
On appeal, the claimant contends that given the factual findings of the trial commissioner the trial commissioner must award the claimant §31-308(a) benefits for the period from January 2, 2002 to November 24, 2002. We agree with the claimant insofar as the need for the trial commissioner to articulate the basis for his denial of the benefits in dispute.
Specifically, we note the commissioner found the testimony of the claimant credible. He also credited the opinion of Dr. Arons. See Finding ¶¶ A-B. In this case we are unable to infer the basis of the trier’s denial of benefits between January 2, 2002 and November 24, 2002 in light of the credibility he accords the testimony of the claimant and Dr. Arons. As we cannot properly review the legal appropriateness of the trier’s dismissal of the claim for benefits between January 2, 2002 and November 24, 2002 without the trial commissioner’s articulation, we are remanding this matter.
 We note the claimant filed a Motion to Direct Judgment Pending Appeal Pursuant to Sec. 31-301(d). We also note during the course of the appeal respondents changed counsel and thus the instant matter was postponed from its original scheduled date for oral argument.

References: §31
 § 31
 § 31
 § 31
 § 31
 §31