133 Conn. App. 65
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff Muslum Ayna sustained a compensable neck injury in 1998 and entered a workers’ compensation settlement; multiple surgeries occurred in 1999, 2001 and later years.
- Orthopedic and neurosurgical opinions conflicted on disability status; Karnasiewicz repeatedly opined that Ayna had reached maximum medical improvement with light duty capacity (20–30 pounds) while Mastroianni opined otherwise.
- The commissioner credited Karnasiewicz over Mastroianni, finding Ayna capable of light duty work and with a work capacity as of 2003, despite later surgeries in 2007 and 2008.
- The commissioner also rejected Mastroianni’s credibility and credited Charlotte Ayna (plaintiff’s former wife) and Karnasiewicz, and denied sanctions under § 31-300; Form 36 notices filed by Graebel/CT Movers, Inc. and Liberty Mutual were approved.
- The board affirmed the commissioner’s findings, and Ayna timely appealed asserting (i) light-duty/maximum medical improvement findings, (ii) work capacity determination, (iii) denial of a motion to correct, and (iv) denial of § 31-300 sanctions.
- The appellate court reviews the board’s decision for errors of law or unreasonable inferences, not for reweighing evidence or retrying credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the board properly affirmed light-duty/maximum medical improvement findings. | Ayna contends commissioner ignored Waldron’s total disability finding and surgery needs in 2007–2008. | Commissioner properly weighed evidence and credibility; Karnasiewicz’ testimony supports light duty and MMI as of 2003. | Yes; findings sustainable on weight of evidence and credibility. |
| Whether the board properly affirmed a work-capacity finding. | Ayna argues plaintiff had no work capacity due to credibility and unreconciled evidence. | There was ample evidence, including Charlotte Ayna and Karnasiewicz, supporting work capacity. | Yes; record supports work capacity finding. |
| Whether the board properly affirmed denial of the motion to correct. | Ayna argues material facts (e.g., later surgeries) were omitted and would alter outcomes. | Commissioner has discretion to determine facts; later surgeries not material to 2003 capacity/MMI/work capacity. | Yes; no uncontested material fact requiring correction. |
| Whether the board properly affirmed denial of § 31-300 sanctions. | Ayna seeks attorney’s fees for undue delay/contested liability. | Findings showed light-duty capacity, MMI, and work capacity; sanctions not warranted. | Yes; no basis to disturb denial of sanctions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shepard v. Wethersfield Offset, Inc., 98 Conn.App. 682 (2006) (limits on board’s review; weigh and credibility not retried by appellate court)
- ED Construction, Inc. v. CNA Ins. Co., 130 Conn.App. 391 (2011) (board may affirm commissioner’s credibility determinations if supported by record)
- Testone v. C.R. Gibson Co., 114 Conn.App. 210 (2009) (motion to correct proper when additional findings would not change outcome)
- Rodriguez v. E.D. Construction, Inc., 126 Conn.App. 717 (2011) (appellate restraint on retrying factual findings)
- Parisi v. Yale University, 89 Conn.App. 716 (2005) (standard for reviewing board decisions on credibility/weight of evidence)