Source: https://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/2006/4920crb.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:44:46+00:00

Document:
The claimant was represented by Michael Regan, Esq., Pinney Payne, P.C., 83 Wooster Heights, Danbury, CT 06810. However, counsel chose to waive oral argument and requested matter be considered on papers.
The respondent-employer, Repko Roofing, was represented by Laura A. Goldstein, Esq., Collins, Hannafin, Garamella, Jaber & Tuozzolo, 148 Deer Hill Avenue, Danbury, CT. 06810.
The respondent, Second Injury Fund, was represented by Lisa G. Weiss, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120.
The Petition for Review from the January 31, 20051 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Seventh District was heard September 23, 2005 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of Commissioners Stephen B. Delaney, Nancy E. Salerno, and Michelle D. Truglia.
STEPHEN B. DELANEY, COMMISSIONER. The claimant has filed a petition for review from the January 31, 2005 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Seventh District. The claimant filed his petition for review on February 22, 2005, which was more than twenty days after the trial commissioner’s decision was issued and was thus untimely under § 31-301(a) C.G.S. and vulnerable to dismissal. The claimant also filed an Extension of Time to file a Motion to Correct on February 22, 2005 which is beyond the two-week period allowed under Admin. Reg. § 31-301-4, but the trial commissioner approved the extension. The Motion to Correct was not filed until March 16, 2005, and was denied by the trial commissioner. The respondent accordingly moved to dismiss the claimant’s appeal on March 16, 2005. The claimant failed to submit an appellant’s brief in a timely fashion, or submit reasons for appeal in accordance with Admin. Reg. § 31-301-2, thus the respondent filed another motion to dismiss on August 2, 2005. The board did not receive the appellant’s brief until September 22, 2005, the day before the hearing on September 23, 2005.
It is expected that parties appearing before this board will make diligent efforts to assure compliance with the rules and regulations governing appeals before this board. The initial Petition for Review was untimely. Accordingly, we dismiss the claimant’s appeal as late. Were we lenient, and had the authority to permit a late appeal the fact remains the claimant did not submit his brief until literally hours prior to the scheduled hearing. This failure to submit a timely brief or reasons for appeal could have prejudiced the opposing party. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process requires opposing party to be given an opportunity to present their objections). Accordingly, we also dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute with due diligence under Practice Book § 85-1. See Rurak v. Sweet Life Inc., 4630 CRB-1-03-02 (February 6, 2004).
Even if we were to consider the merits of the claimant’s appeal, we would affirm the trial commissioner’s decision. We continue a review of the facts and law in this appeal as the circumstances warrant a discussion of the reasoning behind the trial commissioner’s decision and the public policy governing this matter.
The instant case involves an appeal of a trial commissioner’s decision regarding issues which were predominately focused on resolving questions of fact and credibility. A recitation of the facts indicates that this was a very challenging case to resolve, and one in which the application of appropriate legal precedent leads to a result which may not appear to comport with the remedial and humanitarian spirit of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
The record finds the following facts. The claimant was working on a construction site in Danbury on July 5, 1996, when another worker’s nail gun malfunctioned and launched a projectile which impacted the claimant’s eye.2 The employer drove him immediately after the accident to the Primary Care Center in Danbury, and waited in his car for the claimant to be treated. Findings, ¶ 3. He then drove the claimant back to his motor vehicle, who left for the day. Findings, ¶ 4. The claimant returned to work the next day and continued to work for the respondent until September 20, 1996.
The claimant’s eye continued to bother him and he sought further treatment towards the end of 1997. He did not submit bills at that time to his former employer. Findings, ¶¶ 7 and 8. In February 1999, the claimant sought, and the respondent provided, $6,976 to cover medical expenses associated with the eye injury and subsequent medical attention. Findings, ¶¶ 9 and 10. On October 2, 2002, the claimant finally filed a Form 30C regarding the 1996 nail gun accident seeking compensation under Chapter 568. The respondent filed a timely Form 43 contesting liability.
The factual question for the trial commissioner was to determine whether the claimant proved that his employer had furnished medical care within a year of the accident. After a formal hearing, the trial commissioner determined that the claimant had failed to prove he had been furnished medical care within the meaning of the statute within one year of the accident.
The respondent’s legal argument relies on Kulis v. Moll, 172 Conn. 104 (1976) where the Supreme Court found that the employer’s act of driving an employee to the hospital did not constitute the furnishing of medical care as described in § 31-294c(c). The facts herein are distinguishable from the Kulis case, leaving the case as valid legal precedent, but not incontrovertible stare decisis in this instance.3 The respondent had actual knowledge of the potential impact of the injury, evidenced by remaining at the Primary Care Center until the claimant was treated and released.
The absence of such timely payment to a medical provider causes such precedents as Pernacchio v. New Haven, 3911 CRB-3-98-10 (September 27, 1999), aff’d, 63 Conn. 570 (2001) and Distassio v. HP Hood, Inc., 4592 CRB-4-02-11 (May 5, 2004)(ER bills paid by employer) to be inapplicable to this matter. The trial commissioner simply determined after reviewing the evidence that the claimant could not prove the respondent paid for the medical care rendered after the accident. See Findings, ¶¶ 5 and 8. This issue essentially boiled down to a credibility debate between two witnesses, Mr. Teague and Mr. Repko, and the trial commissioner is exclusively empowered to determine which witness he deems credible. See Tartaglino v. Dept. of Correction, 55 Conn. App. 190, 195 (1999), cert. denied, 251 Conn. 929 (1999).
For those reasons, the decision in DelConte v. State/Department of Correction, 4766 CRB-8-03-12 (December 8, 2004) governs the outcome of this case. “The trial commissioner has a certain amount of discretion to make the determination of whether activities the employer engaged in constituted medical care as to meet the medical care exception within the meaning of the statute.” In DelConte, we upheld the trial commissioner’s finding that a prison nurse who was advised of an injury, suggested the claimant take Motrin, and did not report the injury to superiors did not “furnish” medical care within the meaning of the statute.
Our Supreme Court explained the rationale behind placing a time bar on seeking redress from an injury “it reflects a policy of law, as declared by the legislature, that after a given length of time a manufacturer should be sheltered from liability and furthers ‘the public policy of allowing people, after the lapse of a reasonable time, to plan their affairs with a degree of certainty, free from the disruptive burden of protracted and unknown potential liability.’” Daily v. New Britain Machine Co., 200 Conn. 562, 582 (1986).
The inevitability of individual hardship from statutes of repose was apparent to the Supreme Court ‘“At times, it may bar the assertion of a just claim. Then its application causes hardship. The legislature has found [, however,] that such occasional hardship is outweighed by the advantage of outlawing stale claims.’” Id., p. 583.
Since the trial commissioner found no evidence the employer paid for any medical care within a year of the accident, the scenario herein fails to meet the exemption from formal notice in § 31-294c(c) C.G.S. It can only be presumed that in drafting the Workers’ Compensation Act the General Assembly intended that if an employer did not receive either a formal claim or a medical bill for an accident within one year, the employer could presume no claim would be forthcoming.
Our board is obligated to defer to the findings of facts of the trial commissioner and to implement the legislative policies enacted by the General Assembly. While the claimant will find the outcome unsatisfactory, it is the sole result we are empowered to reach.
As noted before, we have dismissed this appeal pursuant to Sec. 31-301(a) and Practice Book § 85-1. Had we chosen not to do so, the trial commissioner’s Finding and Dismissal would have been upheld.
Commissioners Nancy E. Salerno and Michelle D. Truglia concur.

References: § 31
 § 31
 § 31
 v. 
 § 85
 v. 
 v. 
 § 31
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 31
 § 85