Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** MARY DENGLER v. SPECIAL ATTENTION HEALTH SERVICES, INC., ET AL. (AC 19777)
Foti, Schaller and O'Connell, Js. Argued October 24, 2000--officially released March 27, 2001 Counsel

Ivan M. Katz, for the appellant-cross appellee (plaintiff). Kristen Sotnik Falls, with whom, on the brief, was John M. Letizia, for the appellee-cross appellant (defendant Connecticut Hospital Association Workers' Compensation Trust).
Opinion

FOTI, J. The plaintiff, Mary Dengler, appeals from the decision of the workers' compensation review board (board) affirming in part and reversing in part the decision by the workers' compensation commissioner (commissioner) dated February 18, 1998. The defendant Connecticut Hospital Association Workers' Compensation Trust (trust) cross appeals from the same decision.1 The plaintiff claims that the board improperly (1) required her to prove through expert medical evidence

that a leg injury she suffered in 1997 was causally related to a back injury she suffered in 1996, and retried the facts and substituted its own inferences from them in place of those drawn by the commissioner, (2) reversed the commissioner's finding that she was disabled through the date of the commissioner's finding and award, and (3) failed to remand the matter to the commissioner for further proceedings rather than reversing his decision. On cross appeal, the trust claims that the board improperly declined to find that the trust had canceled its insurance policy with the plaintiff's employer, the defendant Special Attention Health Services, Inc. (Special Attention), and concluded that the trust had provided workers' compensation insurance to Special Attention on August 19, 1996, the date when the plaintiff injured her back. We affirm the decision of the board. The following facts and procedural history are necessary for our resolution of this appeal and cross appeal. The commissioner found that on August 19, 1996, Special Attention employed the plaintiff as a certified nurse's assistant. While performing work-related duties at a patient's home, the plaintiff injured her lumbar spine. Special Attention directed the plaintiff to seek treatment from authorized medical providers. The plaintiff, after receiving treatment from several physicians and obtaining physical therapy, was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease, a lumbar strain and spondylosis. The commissioner found that the plaintiff suffered from a work-related total disability from August 19, 1996, through February 16, 1997. On February 16, 1997, almost six months after her back injury, the plaintiff ``experienced some instability in her lumbar spine, which caused her to drop to her knees in her kitchen.'' The commissioner also found that on the same day, the instability in her lumbar spine caused her to fall while descending a stairway at her home. As a result of that fall, the plaintiff sustained a fractured tibia and fibula in her right leg. The commissioner found that ``[t]he instability the [plaintiff] experienced on February 16, 1997, was causally related to the back injury she sustained on August 19, 1996.'' The commissioner found that the plaintiff had suffered a total disability from August 19, 1996, to February 18, 1998, the date he issued his finding and award. The commissioner found, as well, that the trust had provided workers' compensation insurance to Special Attention on August 19, 1996. Finding that the plaintiff's claimed injuries were causally related to the injury she suffered on August 19, 1996, and the trust was responsible for any benefits owed to the plaintiff as a result of the August 19, 1996 injury, the commissioner ordered the trust to pay temporary total disability benefits and all medical bills from authorized medical providers accrued from August 19, 1996, until the date of his finding and award.

The trust timely filed a motion to correct the commissioner's finding and award. The trust proposed, inter alia, that the commissioner's finding should reflect the fact that the plaintiff injured her leg while running down stairs at her home in response to a dogfight in her backyard. The trust also wanted the commissioner's finding to include the fact that hospital treatment notes indicated that the plaintiff was chasing dogs in her backyard when she fell into a hole and injured her leg. The trust requested that the commissioner delete his finding that the plaintiff's August 19, 1996 injury caused the February 16, 1997 injury. Finally, the trust requested that the commissioner add a finding that the trust legally canceled Special Attention's compensation insurance policy and that he dismiss the claim. The commissioner denied the trust's motion to correct, and the trust appealed to the board. The board determined that Special Attention's policy with the trust remained in effect on August 16, 1996, the date that the trust advised Special Attention in writing that the policy would be canceled because of nonpayment of premiums. The board also concluded that the commissioner improperly found that the plaintiff's back injury caused her leg injury. The board reasoned that the commissioner could not find a causal relationship between those events based solely on the statements of the plaintiff and an eyewitness, and that given the absence of medical evidence in the record as to causal relationship, the plaintiff had failed to prove that her leg injury was attributable to her back injury. The board, therefore, reversed the commissioner's findings that the plaintiff's back injury caused her leg injury, and that she had suffered a total disability through the date of the commissioner's finding and award. The plaintiff then appealed and the trust cross appealed to this court. Additional facts will be set forth as they become relevant in the context of the claims before us. ``The principles that govern our standard of review in workers' compensation appeals are well established. The conclusions drawn by [the commissioner] from the facts found must stand unless they result from an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally or unreasonably drawn from them. . . . Neither the review board nor this court has the power to retry facts. . . . It is well established that [a]lthough not dispositive, we accord great weight to the construction given to the workers' compensation statutes by the commissioner and review board.'' (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Schiano v. Bliss Exterminating Co., 57 Conn. App. 406, 411, 750 A.2d 1098 (2000). I The plaintiff's first claim is that the board improperly reversed the commissioner's decision that her August

19, 1996 work-related back injury caused her leg injury. We will discuss the plaintiff's arguments on that claim separately. Essentially, the plaintiff claims that the board improperly required her to prove through expert medical evidence that her leg injuries were causally connected to her back injury. The plaintiff also claims that the board improperly retried the facts of the case and substituted its inferences from them for those drawn by the commissioner. We disagree with both claims. A The commissioner found that the plaintiff's August 19, 1996 work-related injury caused her leg injury. The plaintiff testified that earlier on the date of her leg injury, February 16, 1997, she felt instability in her lumbar spine that caused her to drop to her knees in her kitchen. She also testified that as she was going down stairs later that day, that same feeling of instability in her lumbar spine caused her to collapse and consequently fracture her tibia and fibula. Thomas Iaquessa, the plaintiff's brother and the sole witness to her fall, testified on her behalf and corroborated her version of how she injured her leg. The plaintiff received treatment from several authorized medical providers following the August 19, 1996 work-related accident. Many, if not all, of the plaintiff's medical reports were in evidence. The commissioner found a causal relation between her previous back injury and her leg injury, and found that she had been totally disabled since August 19, 1996. The trust argued to the commissioner, and later to the board, that the plaintiff had failed to prove a causal relationship between the back injury and the leg injury. The trust argued that no medical evidence established the necessary causal link between those events, that a note in a medical record indicated that the plaintiff had fallen in a hole while chasing dogs in her backyard, and that her actions in that regard constituted an ``independent, intervening and superseding legal cause of the [leg] injury.'' The board observed that the commissioner's finding related to the cause of her leg injury rested solely on the statements of the plaintiff and her brother. The board also noted an absence of expert medical evidence on the issue of causal connection, and found that the commissioner's findings concerning that issue ``fail[ed] to surmount the level of speculation and surmise.'' The board ruled that ``[t]he testimony of two lay witnesses as to the circumstances of this injury, without any medical evidence to underpin the claim, is inadequate to establish that the injury was caused by the [plaintiff's] back condition.'' Accordingly, the board reversed the commissioner's decision insofar as it found that the leg injury was attributable to the back injury and that the plaintiff was totally disabled through the date of the commissioner's finding and award.

The standard of review to be used by the board when reviewing a commissioner's findings is set forth in Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies

Download Dengler v. Special Attention Health Services, Inc..pdf

Connecticut Law