Source: https://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1998/3621crb.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:07:29+00:00

Document:
The claimant was represented by Janine Becker, Esq., Willinger, Shepro, Tower & Bucci, P.C., 855 Main Street, Bridgeport, CT 06604.
The respondents were represented by Richard Aiken, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton & Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Boulevard, Glastonbury, CT 06033-4412.
JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The respondents have petitioned for review from the June 2, 1997 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District. They argue on appeal that the trial commissioner erred by authorizing the claimant to obtain a binding opinion from her treating physician regarding the necessity of surgery on her back and its relation to her 1987 compensable injury. We affirm the trial commissioner’s decision.
The respondents argue on appeal that the trial commissioner erred because she failed to make findings regarding the role that subsequent injuries suffered by the claimant played in her need for back surgery. They also contend that the claimant’s credibility was brought into question, but that the trier failed to make findings in that regard as well. It is well-settled that issues of credibility concerning lay witnesses, medical reports, and expert testimony are all within the discretion of the trial commissioner. Kish v. Nursing Home & Care, Inc., 47 Conn. App. 620, 627 (1998); Jusiewicz v. Reliance Automotive, 3140 CRB-6-95-8 (decided Jan. 24, 1997); Webb v. Pfizer, Inc., 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 69, 70-71, 1859 CRB-5-93-9 (May 12, 1995). This board cannot find on review that the trial commissioner should have given greater weight or interpreted differently the reports of Dr. Patria, Dr. Katz, or Dr. Sella that were introduced into evidence by the respondents. We also cannot draw our own inferences from any inconsistencies in the claimant’s testimony that the respondents have highlighted in their brief. All we can do is look at the record to decide whether the commissioner’s conclusions were supported by her findings, and whether those findings had substantial roots in the evidence. Fair v. People’s Savings Bank, 207 Conn. 535, 539 (1988); Webb, supra.
Given the apparent brevity of the claimant’s 1996 visit to Dr. Lipow as discussed in his report, and the fact that six months had passed between the formal hearing and the time Dr. Lipow wrote his note, we can understand why the trial commissioner did not want to order surgery for the claimant right away. At the same time, she was clearly not persuaded by the respondents’ evidence that the claimant’s condition was unrelated to her 1987 injury. As § 31-298 directs the trial commissioner to “make inquiry . . . in a manner that is best calculated to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties and carry out the provisions and intent of [the Workers’ Compensation Act],” we do not think it was incumbent upon the commissioner to make a decision here without first ordering one more examination by Dr. Lipow. The stipulation provides that the respondents will be liable if the claimant undergoes a lumbar surgery at the behest of Dr. Lipow, the authorized treating physician. The commissioner’s order authorizes the claimant to see Dr. Lipow again and to undergo the surgery if he thinks it is appropriate and related to the 1987 injury. That order substantially reflects what the parties agreed to in their settlement, and we do not believe the commissioner erred by failing to either authorize or deny the claimant’s request for surgery at the time she issued her Finding and Award.
DONALD H. DOYLE, JR., CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART. Although I would not characterize the trial commissioner’s request for another examination by Dr. Lipow as error, I believe that the appropriate procedure in this case is to remand for further findings based on the results of his examination. As the majority notes, the trial commissioner is not required to make a decision based on insufficient evidence. The best way to satisfy the mandate of § 31-298 is for the commissioner to gather all of the necessary evidence and make her decision at that time. The trier’s order as it is currently worded will not give her the opportunity to review the results of Dr. Lipow’s examination. As the fact-finder, it is both the prerogative and the duty of the trial commissioner to pass upon the credibility of all of the relevant evidence. Thus, I would remand this matter to the Fourth District so that a commissioner could review the results of Dr. Lipow’s examination, once it is performed.

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