Sullins v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
146 Conn. App. 154
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- John W. Sullins, long‑time UPS employee, had diabetes (diagnosed 1987) and diabetic neuropathy (diagnosed 1998) causing hand/arm impairment before a work accident in 2003.
- After the 2003 work injury (carpal and cubital tunnel syndromes) he had surgeries and later was examined by Dr. Linburg (2010), who assigned 44% impairment to upper extremities and 40% to hands, attributing 10% of each to the work injuries.
- The commissioner found the diabetic neuropathy was an independent, nonoccupational disease and awarded benefits apportioned so defendants would pay only for the 10% attributable to the occupational injuries, applying Deschenes v. Transco.
- The Workers’ Compensation Review Board affirmed the commissioner, concluding Deschenes applied even though neuropathy preexisted the work injury.
- The claimant appealed, arguing Deschenes does not apply where the nonoccupational condition is a previous disability under § 31‑349(a); the appellate court reversed the board and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Deschenes apportionment applies | Deschenes doesn't apply because neuropathy was a previous disability under § 31‑349(a) and thus not a concurrently developing disease | Deschenes can apply even if nonoccupational disease preexisted, so long as work injury did not influence its development | Reversed board: Deschenes requires concurrent development; a preexisting disability falls under § 31‑349 and cannot be apportioned under Deschenes |
| Whether diabetic neuropathy is a "previous disability" under § 31‑349(a) | Neuropathy caused impairments years before the work injury and thus is a previous disability entitling claimant to full compensation (less prior payments) | Defendants contend neuropathy and work injuries combined and thus apportionment is proper | Held neuropathy constituted a previous disability for § 31‑349 purposes; § 31‑349 governs, barring Deschenes apportionment |
| Whether defendants proved the diseases were "concurrently developing" as required by Deschenes | Claimant: record shows neuropathy preexisted by years; defendants did not meet their burden to show concurrent development | Defendants: both conditions coexisted after the work injury and were independent, satisfying Deschenes | Court: defendants failed to prove concurrent development; coexistence after the second injury is not enough to trigger Deschenes |
| Sufficiency of commissioner’s factual findings to apply Deschenes | Claimant: commissioner’s findings show preexisting neuropathy and insufficient findings of concurrent development; Deschenes misapplied | Defendants: commissioner and board made adequate factual findings to support apportionment | Court: commissioner’s findings did not reasonably support concurrent‑development inference; remanded for proceedings consistent with treating neuropathy as a previous disability |
Key Cases Cited
- Deschenes v. Transco, Inc., 288 Conn. 303, 953 A.2d 13 (Conn. 2008) (apportionment permitted only where two disease processes developed concurrently and occupation did not influence the nonoccupational disease)
- Williams v. Best Cleaners, Inc., 237 Conn. 490, 677 A.2d 1356 (Conn. 1996) (definition of "previous disability" and "disability" for § 31‑349(a) purposes)
- Dechio v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 299 Conn. 376, 10 A.3d 20 (Conn. 2010) (standard of review for commissioner’s conclusions in workers’ compensation appeals)
- Tracy v. Scherwitzky Gutter Co., 279 Conn. 265, 901 A.2d 1176 (Conn. 2006) (appellate courts will not retry facts; review limited to law and reasonableness of inferences)