188 Conn. App. 93
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Quinones was injured at work on March 16, 2010 and filed a notice of claim (form 30C). Defendant began paying weekly benefits and medical bills without filing a form 43 to contest compensability.
- Defendant later filed a form 36 (seek to discontinue payments based on evidence plaintiff could work); commission approved form 36 and benefits stopped in November 2011.
- Quinones moved to preclude the defendant from contesting compensability/extent of injury because defendant never filed a form 43 within 28 days. A formal hearing was held before Commissioner Thompson.
- Thompson died after the hearing; Commissioner Delaney was assigned. Parties separately sent letters indicating positions about whether the successor should decide on the record or hold a de novo hearing. Delaney opened the record, recalled Quinones to question him about payments received, and admitted evidence of payments.
- Delaney denied the motion to preclude; the Compensation Review Board affirmed. Quinones appealed, arguing (1) Delaney improperly ignored a stipulation to decide on the original record and (2) defendant’s failure to file form 43 precluded it from contesting compensability or extent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether successor commissioner improperly opened the record / ignored a stipulation to decide on the record | May 24, 2012 letters created a stipulation that matter be decided on the original record; opening record was a de novo hearing | Letters were position statements, not a binding stipulation; commissioner may recall witnesses under successor-judge authority | Not improper: letters were not a stipulation; even if they were, commissioner had authority to recall witness and open record to obtain essential evidence |
| Whether defendant’s failure to file form 43 barred it from contesting compensability or extent | Failure to file form 43 within 28 days triggers conclusive presumption of compensability; thus preclude defendant from contesting | Defendant timely commenced payment (safe harbor) and later filed form 36 within the one-year window to contest extent; compensability was never contested initially | Denial of motion to preclude affirmed: defendant had no duty to file form 43 because it accepted liability and timely paid; it preserved right to contest extent within statutory scheme |
Key Cases Cited
- Day v. Middletown, 59 Conn. App. 816, 757 A.2d 1267 (2000) (standard of review and deference to agency statutory construction)
- State Medical Society v. Board of Examiners in Podiatry, 208 Conn. 709, 546 A.2d 830 (1988) (agency interpretations accorded deference when longstanding and reasonable)
- Kinsey v. World PAC, 152 Conn. App. 116, 98 A.3d 66 (2014) (workers’ compensation remedial purpose and statutory construction)
- Tufaro v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 24 Conn. App. 234, 587 A.2d 1044 (1991) (scope of commissioners’ powers under the act)
- Stevens v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 29 Conn. App. 378, 615 A.2d 507 (1992) (successor judge/commissioner procedures after death of an adjudicator)
- Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Healy, 158 Conn. App. 113, 118 A.3d 637 (2015) (definition and effect of stipulations)
- Rosenfield v. Metals Selling Corp., 229 Conn. 771, 643 A.2d 1253 (1994) (construction of stipulations and question of parties’ intent as factual)
- Gorelick v. Montanaro, 94 Conn. App. 14, 891 A.2d 41 (2006) (court/commissioner may refuse to be bound by parties’ stipulation in special circumstances)
- Delgaizo v. Veeder-Root, Inc., 133 Conn. 664, 54 A.2d 262 (1947) (commissioner not bound by common-law rules of evidence; may require production of records)
- Dubrosky v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp., 145 Conn. App. 261, 76 A.3d 657 (2013) (interpretation of form 43 / § 31-294c safe-harbor for employers who timely commence payment)
- Laliberte v. United Security, Inc., 261 Conn. 181, 801 A.2d 783 (2002) (form 36 defined as the employer’s document to discontinue benefits)