Source: https://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1996/3061crb.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 20:30:16+00:00

Document:
Tyc v. Calabrese Construction Co.
NORTHBROOK PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.
The claimant was represented by Robert B. Yules, Esq., Yules & Yules, 100 Constitution Plaza, Hartford, CT 06103 and William J. Shea, Esq. 21 Oak Street, Hartford, 06106. Atty. Shea appeared at oral argument.
The respondents were represented by Robert G. Montstream, Esq., and David Kelly, Esq., Montstream & May, 655 Winding Brook Drive, Glastonbury, CT 06033.
The respondent Second Injury Fund was represented at the trial level by Philip Schulz, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141. On appeal the Second Injury Fund was represented by Taka Iwashita, Esq., and Brewster Blackall, Esq., both Assistant Attorneys General, 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141.
This Petition for Review from the May 11, 1995 Supplemental Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Fifth District was heard April 19, 1996 before a Compensation Review Board Panel consisting of Commissioners George Waldron, Nancy A. Brouillet and Michael S. Miles.
GEORGE WALDRON, COMMISSIONER. The respondent has petitioned for review from the Commissioner acting for the Fifth District’s May 11, 1995 Supplemental Finding and Award1. In that Supplemental Finding the trial commissioner delineated the recalculation of the claimant’s compensation so as to allow for overtime wages which were due the claimant. That Supplemental Finding was the result of this tribunal’s remand in Tyc v. Calabrese Construction Co., 1529 CRB-5-92-10, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 71 (Dec. 29, 1994) [hereinafter Tyc I].
The trial commissioner, consistent with the CRB’s opinion, rendered his May 11, 1995 Supplemental Finding and Award in which he found the claimant’s average weekly wage was $1000.00. The $1,000.00 represented 40 hours at $16.00 per hour with an additional 15 hours at $24.00 per hour.
The respondents took the instant appeal and ask this tribunal to consider whether the trial commissioner erred when he concluded that the claimant was entitled to an average weekly wage computation based on a portion of wages at an overtime rate and the trier proceeded to calculate that rate. Succinctly put, the respondents contend that this commission lacks the authority to decide an issue arising under § 31-76c as that statute is not a part of our Workers’ Compensation Act. We disagree.
The body of Workers’ Compensation case law has often referred to other statutes and case law for guidance in consideration of legal issues arising under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Most notably we refer the respondent to our Appellate Court’s opinion in Kreidler v. Bic Pen Corporation, 16 Conn. App. 437, 442 (1988). In Kreidler the Appellate Court was asked to consider whether a claimant was entitled to have an average weekly wage calculation which included overtime. The Appellate Court’s decision is replete with references to §31-76 et seq. Furthermore as the Appellate Court noted, “Statutes existing at the time a contract is made become a part of it and must be read into it just as if an express provision to that effect were inserted therein, except where the contract disclosed a contrary intention. (citation omitted)” Kreidler, 16 Conn. App. 437, 442 (1988).
We believe that the respondent-appellant is merely seeking to have this board reconsider our earlier opinion Tyc I. We were unpersuaded by the arguments raised then and this most recent elucidation of those arguments is again unpersuasive. Furthermore, if the respondents wished to challenge our earlier ruling in Tyc I the appropriate procedural mechanism would have been to file an appeal with the Appellate Court. Cf. Sidella v. Kelly Services, Inc., 41 Conn. App. 116 (1996). Our Supreme Court has noted,“[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, if it is of the opinion that the issue was correctly decided, in the absence of some new or overriding circumstance.” (citations omitted) Breen v. Phelps, 186 Conn. 86, 99 (1982). We believe the law of the case applies and we can see no reason or circumstance which compel us to depart from our earlier ruling in this matter. Mingrone v. Burndy Corp., 1403 CRB-7-92-3, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 19 (Jan. 13, 1994).
At any time within ten days after entry of an award by the commissioner, after a decision of the commissioner upon a motion or after an order by the commissioner according to the provisions of section 31-299b, either party may appeal therefrom to the Compensation Review Board by filing in the office of the commissioner from which the award or the decision on a motion originated an appeal petition and five copies thereof.
In this particular instance it appears the trial commissioner did not find it necessary to conduct additional proceedings. We can only infer that the trial commissioner was satisfied that the record was complete enough so as to enable him to make the overtime determination and thus, further proceedings were unnecessary. We believe the trial commissioner’s inference was appropriate and his overtime calculation did not require the taking of additional evidence. However, the commissioner could have held additional evidentiary proceedings had he so chosen. As the trial commissioner maintained the opportunity to exercise his independent judgment as a fact finder regarding the claimant’s overtime calculation, the trier’s Supplemental Finding and Award is appealable to this body. See Boulay v. Waterbury, 27 Conn. App. 483 (1992). The appellee’s Motion To Dismiss is denied.
We therefore for the reasons stated above dismiss the respondents’ appeal from the May 11, 1995 Supplemental Finding and Award and affirm the trial commissioner’s decision in this matter. Having concluded as we have we award interest pursuant to Sec. 31-301c(b) to any amounts which were unpaid during the pendency of this appeal.
Commissioners Nancy A. Brouillet3 and Michael S. Miles concur.

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