Opinion
CASE NO. 427 CRD-4-85
MARCH 29, 1988
The claimant was represented at trial level by Matthew B. Woods, Esq. and on appeal by Cheryl Eckhardt, Esq., both of Gladstone, Schwartz, Baroff Blum.
The respondents were represented by George A. Waldron, Esq., Murphy Beane.
This Petition for Review from the September 17, 1985 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Fourth District was heard October 31, 1986 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Robin Waller and Michael S. Sherman.
FINDING AND AWARD
The Fourth District Finding and Award of September 17, 1985 is hereby affirmed and adopted as the Finding and Award of this Division.
OPINION
At issue here is the one-year statute of limitations and the medical care exception contained in Sec. 31-294, C.G.S. Claimant was an underground worker for the Respondent-Employer. On April 21, 1983 he reported a back injury to Nurse Mary Ann Troidle. She was a registered nurse employed in the employer's health department and worked under the supervision of a physician also so employed. Nurse Troidle examined Claimant April 21, 22 and 25 and restricted him to light duty until April 24, 1983. The claimant had on April 22, 1983 filed with the respondent-employer a Supplementary Record of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses.
The Finding and Award below ruled that Claimant had not satisfied the written notice of claim provisions of Sec. 31-294 but had satisfied the medical care exception since the employer furnished medical or surgical care within the applicable period of time. Respondent has appealed. It argues that treatment by the employer's nurse does not constitute furnishing medical or surgical care because Sec. 31-294 medical care must be furnished by a competent physician. Carlino v. Danbury. Hospital, 1 Conn. App. 142 (1984) indicates otherwise. In Carlino, Claimant reported a back injury to the employer's physician. The physician did not examine the claimant but merely told her she needed a psychiatrist. The court concluded that fact to constitute the furnishing of medical care. Its opinion held that the pertinent part of Sec. 31-294 established two elements which Carlino satisfied; 1) if the employer knew of the injury, and 2) if "the employer provides a competent physician". Id. at 148.
Sec. 31-294 provides in part: "No proceedings for compensation under the provisions of this chapter shall be maintained unless a written notice of claim for compensation is given within one year from the date of the accident. . . .[I]f within the applicable period an employee has been furnished: for the injury with respect to which compensation is claimed, with medical or surgical care as hereafter provided in this section, no want of such notice of claim shall be a bar to the maintenance of proceedings. . . .The employer as soon as he has knowledge of any such injury, shall provide a competent physician. . .to attend the injured employee. . . .[H]owever, where the employer has a full-time staff physician or a physician is available on call, the initial treatment required immediately may be rendered by such physician. . . .
In Gesmundo v. Bush, 133 Conn. 607 (1947) an injured employee reported his injury to the employer's superintendent who then sent the employee to a physician. The designated physician examined the claimant and gave him follow up instructions. The claimant himself paid for the physician's services. Gesmundo held, "The exception is, no doubt, based upon the fact that if the employer furnished medical treatment he must know that an injury has been suffered which at least may be the basis of such a claim. . . .[I]t is the fact that the defendant [employer] through its superintendents made provision for medical treatment that makes unnecessary the formal notice". Id. at 612.
To deny here that medical care was furnished merely because the care was administered by a registered nurse who worked under the supervision of a physician would render the public policy reflected in the law meaningless. To apply the statute as narrowly as the respondent would have us do would thwart the law's intent and contravene the numerous authorities mandating us to construe the Workers' Compensation Act to effect the broad humanitarian purpose of the Act, Bahre v. Hogbloom, 162 Conn. 549 (1972).
We, therefore, affirm the Fourth District September 17, 1985 Finding and Award.
Commissioners Robin Waller and Michael S. Sherman concur.