Opinion
CASE NO. 1181 CRD-5-91-2
MAY 21, 1992
The claimant was represented by Edward T. Dodd, Jr., Esq. and Paul Ranando, Esq.
The respondents were represented by Peter Ottomano, Esq., and Thomas L. Brayton, III, Esq.
The Second Injury Fund was represented by Morton Greenblatt, Esq. and Robin Wilson, Esq., Assistant Attorneys General.
This Petition for Review from the February 19, 1991 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Fifth District was heard January 24, 1992 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi and Commissioners Robin Waller and Angelo dos Santos.
OPINION
Claimant's appeal contends that the commissioner should have found his right index finger injury compensable and should have found the orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Richard Matza, to be an authorized physician.
As claimant did not file a motion to correct, the facts found by the commissioner must stand. Mack v. Blake Drug, 152 Conn. 523 (1965). But claimant argues that the issues raised are issues of law and that the commissioner's conclusions were "so unreasonable as to justify judicial interference." Bailey v. Mitchell, 113 Conn. 721, 725 (1931). We disagree.
Whether an injury arose in and out of the course of employment is a factual determination for the trier to make. Fair v. People's Savings Bank, 207 Conn. 535 (1988). Such a determination is dependent upon the weight and credibility to be accorded the evidence below. We will not disturb conclusions where so based Rivera v. Guida's Dairy, 167 Conn. 524 (1975). Similar considerations govern the refusal to consider Dr. Matza an authorized treating physician, a conclusion primarily within the purview of the trial commissioner. McConnell v. Hewitt Associates, 8 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 32, 764 CRD-7-88-8 (1990).
In Greiger v. Leake Nelson, 9 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 17, 890 CRD-4-89-6 (1991) we considered the employee's statutory right at the outset to choose his own physician. We restated, Greiger, supra "the employer as well as society benefit by the early restoration to health of the injured employee." Id. at 21 quoting Carney v. Plimpton Mfg. Co., 111 Conn. 401, 405 (1930). Therefore the Greiger matter was remanded for further proceedings as the claimant's consultation with the "unauthorized" physician was for treatment of a compensable injury. This fact distinguishes Greiger from the present case. Here it appears that Dr. Matza's bills were for treatment not related to a compensable injury.
We therefore affirm the Fifth District's February 19, 1991 decision and dismiss claimant's appeal.
Commissioners Robin Waller and Angelo dos Santos concur.