161 Conn.App. 691
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Conroy, a longtime Stamford firefighter who passed a preemployment physical showing no hypertension, later had intermittent elevated BP readings and was monitored by his PCP, Dr. Blumberg.
- On January 30, 2008 Blumberg recorded mildly elevated readings (≈140/94–96), suggested lifestyle changes or medication, and asked Conroy to monitor BP; Conroy thereafter lowered readings by diet/exercise.
- No physician formally diagnosed Conroy with hypertension or prescribed ongoing antihypertensive medication until an ER visit on January 6, 2012, when he was admitted and started on medication.
- Conroy filed a § 7-433c notice of claim on April 9, 2012; the city argued the one-year limitations period began on January 30, 2008.
- The trial commissioner found Conroy was not formally diagnosed until January 6, 2012 and awarded benefits; the Compensation Review Board affirmed.
- The City appealed, claiming the commissioner misapplied the law (statute of limitations under § 31-294c(a)) and unreasonably drew inferences from the facts by treating the 2008 visit as non-diagnostic.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the 1-year limitations period under § 31-294c(a) for a § 7-433c hypertension claim begin? | Begins when a medical professional informs the employee of a hypertension diagnosis; Conroy was not so informed until Jan. 6, 2012. | Began on Jan. 30, 2008 when Dr. Blumberg offered medication and documented elevated readings. | Affirmed: limitations run when employee is informed of a formal diagnosis; here that occurred Jan. 6, 2012. |
| Whether offering medication equals a formal diagnosis that triggers the limitations period | Offering medication alone does not necessarily constitute a formal diagnosis under the totality-of-circumstances test. | Offering medication indicates the physician recognized hypertension and triggered the limitations period. | Offering medication without more (context, physician’s words, subsequent normal readings, lack of formal diagnosis) did not trigger the period. |
| Role of patient’s knowledge/ability (Conroy an EMT) in determining notice/diagnosis | Patient’s EMT training does not substitute for a physician’s formal diagnosis; patient reasonably believed no formal diagnosis occurred in 2008. | Patient’s training and awareness of readings should have put him on notice earlier. | The commissioner reasonably credited that EMT knowledge did not equate to receiving a formal medical diagnosis. |
| Standard of review: whether commissioner’s factual inferences were permissible | Commissioner’s findings are binding unless law misapplied or inferences illegal/unreasonable. | Argues commissioner misapplied Ciarlelli and drew unreasonable inferences from facts. | Court held the commissioner’s findings were supported by evidence and applied Ciarlelli correctly; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ciarlelli v. Hamden, 299 Conn. 265 (2010) (one-year limitations period for § 31-294c(a) begins when a medical professional informs the employee of a hypertension diagnosis; totality-of-circumstances test)
- Roohr v. Cromwell, 302 Conn. 767 (2011) (applied Ciarlelli: a physician’s contemporaneous testimony that a diagnosis was made is sufficient to trigger the limitations period)
- Brymer v. Clinton, 302 Conn. 755 (2011) (standard of review: appellate courts defer to commissioner’s factual findings and credibility determinations)