Mathieu v. C M Corporation

Full title: JANET MATHIEU, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT vs. C M CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and AETNA…

Court: Workers' Compensation Commission

Date published: May 11, 1988

463 CRD 2 (Conn. Work Comp. 1988)

Opinion

CASE NO. 463 CRD-2-86

MAY 11, 1988

The claimant was represented by Carolyn P. Kelly, Esq., O'Brien, Shafner, Bartinik, Stuart Kelly.

The respondents were represented by James L. Pomeranz, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton Stabnick.

This Petition for Review from the February 24, 1986 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner for the Second District was heard May 29, 1987 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioner Andrew Denuzze and A. Thomas White, Jr.

OPINION

JOHN ARCUDI, Chairman.

A Voluntary Agreement approved by the Second District August 18, 1982 relates that Claimant sustained a back injury November 30, 1981. In September, 1983 Claimant, while twisting in her seat, experienced a sharp pain later diagnosed as a disc rupture. At that time she was no longer employed by this Respondent.

The Second District Commissioner found the 1983 twisting incident was a separate occurrence from 1981 events and was therefore not compensable. He based his finding on the following testimony of Dr. David Cavicke, a New London neurosurgeon, who examined Claimant on behalf of the employers:

"Q. So, would you differentiate that specific episode from a recurrence of symptoms, as opposed to an aggravation?

A. I believe it was aggravation of something that had started with the previous episodes that you described." (Deposition of Dr. David Cavicke, November 28, 1984 at 15.)

That answer evinced an opinion by the doctor that the 1983 episode was a new link in the chain of causation and that the accompanying disc rupture would not have happened at that time except for that 1983 event. A factual finding based on that medical opinion was within the purview of the trial Commissioner. We will not substitute our findings for those of the trier unless "the inference is one which a reasonable man could not draw in a reasoning way and which . . . is so unreasonable as to justify judicial interference", Bailey v. Mitchell, 113 Conn. 721, 725 (1931). We, therefore, affirm the trial Commissioner's Finding and Dismissal.

Commissioners Andrew Denuzze and A. Thomas White, Jr. concur.