Source: https://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/2009/5393crb.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 20:44:02+00:00

Document:
The claimant was represented by Daniel Skuret, Esq., Law Offices of Daniel D. Skuret, 215 Division Street, P.O. Box 158, Ansonia, CT 06401-0158.
The respondents were represented by Timothy Ward, Esq., McGann, Bartlett & Brown, 111 Founders Plaza, Suite 1201, East Hartford, CT 06108.
This Petition for Review from the October 27, 2008 Order of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District was heard April 24, 2009 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Peter C. Mlynarczyk and Randy L. Cohen.
JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The respondents in this matter have appealed from an Order issued by the trial commissioner directing that a claims adjuster be subject to a deposition. The respondents argue that this in some fashion violates their due process rights. We find no merit in the respondents’ arguments, and affirm the order of the trial commissioner.
The genesis of this dispute occurred when counsel for the claimant alleged that the respondents had engaged in undue delay and unreasonable contest. In preparation for a hearing on this issue counsel for the claimant noticed a deposition of a claims adjuster for ACE USA insurance, Ann McCants. Counsel for the respondent filed for a protective order and a Motion to Quash the subpoena. Following those developments the trial commissioner issued a notice, dated October 2, 2007 for the parties to attend an Emergency Formal hearing on October 16, 2007. The hearing notice referenced § 31-288(a) C.G.S. § 31-288(b) C.G.S. and § 31-300 C.G.S. among other statutes. The hearing did not specifically reference the claimant’s discovery requests.
That issue was addressed at the commencement of the October 16, 2007 formal hearing. The trial commissioner made the following statement on the record.
I just want to make a statement for the record preliminary as far as housekeeping. The notice, as I stated, was issued on October 2, 2007 for today’s formal; and as the parties have a copy of that notice, there’s various issues listed for today’s formal. We had brief discussion off the record. Essentially what this case was set down for today’s formal by myself was in regard to the claimant’s request to take the deposition of the respondent adjuster in this case. That exactly is not spelled out in the notice for today’s formal.
So the purpose on going forward today on the record is to spell out to the parties that I’m going to reconvene this formal for approximately two weeks and the next time we reconvene the formal, it’s going to be for the sole issue of the claimant’s request to take the respondent adjuster deposition. And then at a later date we will address the other listed issues.
October 16, 2007 Transcript, pp. 2-3.
The next formal hearing was held on January 28, 2008. While the hearing notice for that hearing did not specifically reference the issue of holding a deposition; once again the trial commissioner went on the record to confirm the parties were prepared to go forward on that issue.
Also I think it needs to be stated that the underlying issues in this case that give rise to the claimant’s request to take the deposition of the adjuster in this case are noticed for today’s formal as they have been in the past. I just want to make it clear the only issue for today’s formal though is claimant’s request to take the deposition. All these other issues are still claimed, they’re not going to be argued as part of this formal.
Any disagreement with that, Attorney Skuret?
MR. SKURET: No, just to take the deposition and production of documents as your Honor I think indicated.
MR. WARD: No, no disagreement with that.
January 28, 2008 Transcript, pp. 3-4.
On October 27, 2008 the trial commissioner ordered that the deposition of Ms. McCants take place. Following the denial of a Motion to Correct, the respondents appealed this order.
Notwithstanding the fact that their counsel acknowledged on the record that he was aware of the issues under consideration by the trial commissioner, and consented to the commissioner proceeding at that time, the respondents have appealed arguing they had inadequate notice of the issues under consideration. This argument is unmeritorious.
The legal argument presented by the respondents appears rather wide ranging and amorphous, and alleges that the claimant has failed to properly define the issues under consideration pertaining to undue delay and unreasonable contest. For the purposes of this appeal these arguments are irrelevant. The only relief ordered by the trial commissioner was ordering the deposition of the respondent’s claim adjuster. We will limit our consideration to that single issue presently under appeal.
In order to prevail on appeal, the respondents would need to establish that the trial commissioner’s order was improper for one of the following reasons.
The respondents had inadequate notice of the subject matter of the hearing and could not have been able to present a proper defense to the claimant’s discovery request.
The trial commissioner’s action were an abuse of discretion.
The legal standard herein was stated in Mosman v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., 4180 CRB-4-00-1 (March 1, 2001). “[N]otice of a hearing is not required to contain an accurate forecast of the precise action which will be taken on the subject matter referred to in the notice. It is adequate if it fairly and sufficiently apprises those who may be affected of the nature and character of the action proposed. . . .” In Mosman we further stated “we also recognize that a party may be apprised that a given claim is at issue by other means, such as the statement of the parties at trial, the evidence they have introduced, or the papers they have filed” Id. Clearly, the trial commissioner fulfilled this requirement by his statements at the hearing.
The respondents then challenge the legal authority for ordering a deposition, asserting that the trial commissioner must seek the intervention of the Superior Court in ordering a deposition. This argument is inconsistent with the plain language of the statutes empowering trial commissioners to conduct hearings. It also ignores the quasi-judicial powers of this Commission which have been recognized by the Supreme Court since the decision in Powers v. Hotel Bond Co., 89 Conn. 143 (1915).
On appeal, we must apply the “plain meaning” of the various statutes empowering trial commissioners. See § 1-2z C.G.S. The plain meaning of § 31-287 C.G.S. and § 31-298 C.G.S. provide a broad grant of authority for a trial commissioner to “run one’s own courtroom” which we have previously held “goes directly to the core powers of this Commission to adjudicate claims.” Potvin v. Lincoln Service & Equipment, 5258 CRB-3-07-8 (November 12, 2008).
Both parties may appear at any hearing, either in person or by attorney or other accredited representative, and no formal pleadings shall be required, beyond any informal notices that the commission approves. In all cases and hearings under the provisions of this chapter, the commissioner shall proceed, so far as possible, in accordance with the rules of equity. He shall not be bound by the ordinary common law or statutory rules of evidence or procedure, but shall make inquiry, through oral testimony, deposition testimony or written and printed records, 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. No fees shall be charged to either party by the commissioner in connection with any hearing or other procedure, but the commissioner shall furnish at cost (1) certified copies of any testimony, award or other matter which may be of record in his office, and (2) duplicates of audio cassette recordings of any formal hearings. Witnesses subpoenaed by the commissioner shall be allowed the fees and traveling expenses that are allowed in civil actions, to be paid by the party in whose interest the witnesses are subpoenaed.
The respondents finally argue that the trial commissioner committed legal error herein by approving the deposition. In their opinion, the trial commissioner was obligated to offer a detailed response either granting or denying the numerous objections and proposed protective orders interposed by the respondent. They believe this failure constitutes an abuse of discretion. We disagree.
On a factual basis, we note that these issues were the subject of the respondents Motion to Correct. The trial commissioner denied this Motion and we may infer that he found none of the requests meritorious. This is the last word on the subject, especially as the respondents failed to seek an articulation of the trial commissioner’s reasoning. On legal grounds, however, we query whether the commissioner needed to more fully explain his rationale for denial. The objections interposed by the respondents were akin to those interposed by parties in civil litigation. Since trial commissioners, by statute, are not “bound by the ordinary common law or statutory rules of evidence or procedure,” see § 31-298 C.G.S.; we are puzzled as to why the respondents rely on such cases as Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 276 Conn. 168 (2005) which involve discovery disputes in civil litigation.
The trial commissioner was the person in the best position to judge whether a deposition of the respondent’s claims adjuster was necessary in this case. The respondents’ efforts to raise arcane legal arguments may contribute heat to these discussions; but shed no light on why the trial commissioner’s decision constituted an abuse of his discretion.6 This panel cannot overturn what is essentially a finding of fact that the deposition of Ms. McCants is necessary in this matter.
There is no error. The trial commissioner’s Order is affirmed and this appeal is dismissed.
Commissioners Peter C. Mlynarzyck and Randy L. Cohen concur in this opinion.

References: § 31
 § 31
 § 31
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 § 31
 § 31
 v. 
 § 31
 v.