From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

NEAL v. UTC/PRATT WHITNEY

Workers' Compensation Commission
Aug 5, 1992
1199 CRD 8 (Conn. Work Comp. 1992)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1199 CRD-8-91-3

AUGUST 5, 1992

The claimant was represented by Kevin Coombes, Esq., Peck, Coombes O'Neil.

The respondents were represented by Anne Kelly Zovas, Esq., and Richard Aiken, Esq., both of Pomeranz, Drayton Stabnick.

This Petition for Review from the March 8, 1991 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner for the Eighth District was heard February 21, 1992 before Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the then Commission Chairman, John Arcudi and Commissioners Jesse M. Frankl, and George Waldron.


OPINION


In this appeal claimant contends that he sustained a compensable back injury June 1987 as the result of a slip and fall accident at his workplace. The low back injury occurred while he was stepping off a forklift truck. The Eighth District denied his claim.

Claimant asserts the commissioner's conclusions were based on unreasonable and impermissible factual inferences and therefore should not be allowed to stand. Cf. Fair v. People's Savings Bank, 207 Conn. 535 (1988). Respondents in the proceedings below contended that the injury was sustained by the claimant in a non-work related softball game for the claimant's union. (See Paragraph #1 as corrected by the July 24, 1991 ruling on claimant's Motion to Correct.) The commissioner concluded claimant failed to establish compensability of his injury by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

As was stated in Fair, supra, this tribunal does not engage in a de novo review. The conclusions of a trial commissioner "must stand unless they result from an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally unreasonably drawn from them." Id. at 539. The conclusion reached below was dependent upon the weight and credibility accorded the evidence and the testimony. We will not disturb conclusions which are so based. Wheat v. Red Star Express Lines, 156 Conn. 245 (1968); Rivera v. Guida's Dairy, 167 Conn. 524 (1975). The evidence below was in conflict but there was evidence presented which supports the commissioner's ultimate conclusion.

We, therefore, affirm the Eighth District and deny the appeal.

Commissioners Jesse M. Frankl and George Waldron concur.


Summaries of

NEAL v. UTC/PRATT WHITNEY

Workers' Compensation Commission
Aug 5, 1992
1199 CRD 8 (Conn. Work Comp. 1992)
Case details for

NEAL v. UTC/PRATT WHITNEY

Case Details

Full title:DAVID NEAL, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT v. UTC/PRATT WHITNEY, EMPLOYER and CIGNA…

Court:Workers' Compensation Commission

Date published: Aug 5, 1992

Citations

1199 CRD 8 (Conn. Work Comp. 1992)

Citing Cases

Woznicki v. Meriden Yellow Cab

The conclusion reached below was thus dependent on the weight and credibility accorded the evidence. We will…

Simmons v. Bonhotel

After thoroughly examining the record in this case, it is clear that the commissioner's decision was…