Parandes v. City of Hartford

Full title: LEE PARANDES, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT vs. CITY OF HARTFORD, EMPLOYER and…

Court: Workers' Compensation Commission

Date published: Apr 20, 1987

222 CRD 1 (Conn. Work Comp. 1987)

Opinion

CASE NO. 222 CRD-1-83

APRIL 20, 1987

The claimant was represented by Edward T. Grady, Jr., Esq., Riscassi and Davis, P.C.

The respondents were represented by Robert E. Beach, Jr., Esq., Naab Danforth.

This Petition for Review from the April 5, 1983 Finding and Denial of Claim by the First District Commissioner was heard March 29, 1985 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Andrew Denuzze and Frank Verrilli.

FINDING AND AWARD

The Finding and Award of the trial Commissioner is affirmed and adopted as the Finding and Award of this tribunal.

OPINION

JOHN ARCUDI, Chairman.

Claimant was a high school science teacher who sustained a traumatic head injury February 7, 1973 when a door closing mechanism struck him on the top of his head. Subsequently, on or about March 14, 1973, claimant was involved in a non-work related automobile accident. He argues that the February 7 traumatic head injury aggravated a pre-existing psychiatric condition and rendered him totally disabled.

Claimant has appealed the First District's April 5, 1983 denial of his claim. His contention is that the Commissioner should have found the February 7 compensable injury to be the primary causative factor precipitating total disability and that the March 14, 1973 event was insignificant in the causal chain.

The determination of whether the February 7, 1973 injury was a substantial factor in causing the claimant's disability is a factual determination which must be made by the trial Commissioner. "The conclusions drawn by him must stand unless they result from an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally or unreasonably drawn from them." Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division, 177 Conn. 107, 118 (1979). As we do not find that Commissioner's findings and conclusions were based on an incorrect application of the law to the facts or on unreasonable inferences from the facts, we must affirm his factual findings and conclusions.

We, therefore, affirm the trial Commissioner's Finding and Denial of Claim.

Commissioners Andrew Denuzze and Frank Verrilli concur in this opinion.