Jodlowski v. Stanley Works
147 A.3d 741
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Jan Jodlowski (self-represented) injured at work in 2004 and received workers’ compensation benefits; ongoing pain management with Dr. Jonathan Kost was previously authorized.
- Kost recommended further interventions (spinal cord stimulator, surgical consult); neurosurgeon Andrew Wakefield and physiatrist Jerrold Kaplan (defendant’s examiners) concluded the plaintiff was not a surgical candidate and did not support a spinal cord stimulator.
- Plaintiff obtained neurosurgeon Joseph Aferzon’s opinion recommending discogram and lumbar fusion (L5-S1, possibly L4-5); Kost later delayed Rosomoff Center treatment pending those procedures.
- Commissioner credited Wakefield’s and Kaplan’s opinions over Kost’s and Aferzon’s, denied the plaintiff’s requests for a spinal cord stimulator and lumbar fusion, but authorized Rosomoff Center treatment and continued pain management with Kost.
- The Workers’ Compensation Review Board affirmed, holding that the commissioner permissibly found the defendant’s experts more persuasive and that § 31-294f does not compel a commissioner’s exam when medical opinions conflict.
- Plaintiff appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court asserting error in denying lumbar fusion and failing to order a commissioner’s examination; the appellate court affirmed the board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether commissioner erred in denying lumbar fusion | Jodlowski: medical evidence (Kost, Aferzon) shows need for discogram and fusion | Stanley: defendant’s experts (Wakefield, Kaplan) show fusion not indicated; commissioner may weigh evidence | Affirmed — commissioner reasonably credited defendant’s experts; denial sustained |
| Whether commissioner erred by denying spinal cord stimulator | Jodlowski: recommended by treating physician as treatment option | Stanley: treating and independent exams show patient not candidate; EMG normal | Affirmed — evidence supported not recommending stimulator |
| Whether commissioner must order a commissioner’s medical examination under § 31-294f when opinions conflict | Jodlowski: commissioner should have ordered exam to resolve conflicting medical opinions | Stanley: § 31-294f permits exams on employer request or commissioner direction but does not mandate sua sponte exam | Affirmed — statute does not require commissioner to order an exam; discretionary, not mandatory |
| Standard of review for board/appellate review of commissioner’s factual determinations | Jodlowski: (implicit) factual findings should be reconsidered | Stanley: commissioner is factfinder; board/court cannot substitute judgment | Affirmed — appellate court defers to commissioner’s credibility and factual inferences |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Haburey v. Winchester, 150 Conn. App. 699 (appellate court case on standard of review and deference to commissioner)
- Kasica v. Columbia, 309 Conn. 85 (Connecticut Supreme Court case on statutory construction principles)
- Cruz v. Montanez, 294 Conn. 357 (Connecticut Supreme Court case on plenary review for questions of law)
- Viera v. Cohen, 283 Conn. 412 (Connecticut Supreme Court case on courts construing statutes as written)
- Diaz v. Pineda, 117 Conn. App. 619 (appellate court case on admission of additional evidence before the board)