Opinion
CASE NO. 1209 CRD-7-91-4
JANUARY 7, 1993
The claimant was represented by Edward T. Todd, Jr., Esq. and Charles Senich, Esq.
The respondent was represented by Brewster Blackall, Esq., Diane Duhamel, Esq., Avery L. Brown, Esq., and Robin Wilson, Esq., Assistant Attorneys General.
This Petition for Review from the March 28, 1991 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner for the Seventh District was heard March 13, 1992 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the then Commission Chairman, John Arcudi and Commissioners Frank Verrilli and Donald H. Doyle.
OPINION
Claimant contest the Seventh District dismissal of her claim for a stress related compensable injury. She was a social worker for the respondent State of Connecticut in the Department of Children and Youth Services [DCYS].
See Case No. 906 CRD-7-89-8 for a previous matter involving a different issue between these parties.
She was first treated by her family physician on August 1, 1988 and November 16, 1988 for "`severe fatigue, palpitations, headaches, insomnia, and stress.'" Paragraph #4. In October of that year she consulted an allergist due to the breathing problems. The allergist, Dr. Christopher Randolph, concluded her breathing difficulties were anxiety related as opposed to organic in nature. Paragraph #5. On November 10, 1988 she was taken to Danbury Hospital when she experienced a period of feeling that she was going to pass out while driving to work. There she was diagnosed as having a viral syndrome. At work on December 9, 1988, she broke out in a rash and experienced breathing problems and was again treated at the Hospital's emergency room. She was then found to be suffering a hypertension episode.
She next treated with an endocrinologist, Dr. Richard Hart, to determine the physical etiology of her various symptoms. Dr. Hart concluded the symptoms were "secondary to job related stress." Paragraph #3. He referred the claimant to Dr. Ellen Fishbein, a board certified psychiatrist. She and her staff associates began treating the claimant February 16, 1989 for panic attacks with agoraphobia. Dr. Fishbein concluded claimant's panic attacks and agoraphobia were caused by work related stress.
The commissioner found that Dr. Fishbein's analysis eliminated the following problems as possible stressors causing claimant's symptoms: (1) the chronic illness of her father rendered a paraplegic due to a ruptured aortic aneurysm, (2) the 1972 crib death of her three month old child, (3) her obesity, (4) the suicide attempt of her fifteen year old learning disabled daughter, (5) scholastic problems of her eighteen year old learning disabled son who had dropped out of school, (6) the divorce of her brother, (7) her husband's long term back injury disability and (8) a first marriage to an emotionally abusive alcoholic spouse.
Dr. Walter Borden, a psychiatrist, who examined the claimant for the respondents found claimant was not suffering from job related stress but a "masked depression". Paragraph #12.
The commissioner concluded that "claimant failed to meet her burden of proving that her claimed mental injury is the result of mental stimuli arising out of and in the course of her employment."
Claimant argues that the trier failed to apply the correct standard as to burden of proof. The burden lies with the asserter of a claim, i.e., the claimant. See e.g. McNamara v. Town of Hamden, 176 Conn. 547 (1979); Triano v. United States Rubber Co., 144 Conn. 393 (1957); Saunders v. New England Collapsible Tube Co., 95 Conn. 40 (1920). A claimant must prove a causal connection between the injury claimed and the employment. DiLauro v. Bassetti, 133 Conn. 642 (1947); Senzamici v. Waterbury Castings Co., 115 Conn. 446 (1932). Proof of proximate causation is required as in tort to determine whether the work related events were a substantial factor in producing the resultant disability. McDonough v. Connecticut Bank Trust Co., 204 Conn. 104, 108 note 2 (1987).
The argument is that the commissioner failed to determine that work place stress was a substantial factor in producing claimant's disability. But the trier relied on the testimony in Dr. Borden's August 30, 1990 deposition to reach his ultimate conclusion. In Dr. Borden's cross-examination the following colloquy with claimant's counsel occurred:
Atty. Ranando: Okay. Going back to what she told you about the stresses at the job. I guess, then the fact that she would have too much work or too many case loads is not a specific enough stress to be significant to you; is that correct?
Dr. Borden: Not in the sense of causing anxiety attacks or panic attacks, no.
See Respondent's Exhibit 1, Deposition of Dr. Walter Borden at 32.
In addition to the portion cited Dr., Borden's testimony treats at length the other problems and stressors in claimant's life which reasonably support the conclusion that claimant's work was not a substantial factor in producing the claimant's disability. See Deposition at 20-22, 28-36.
Claimant's matter presents a situation which occurs often when the evidence before the commissioner is in conflict and the ultimate conclusion is dependent on the weight and credibility to be accorded the differing evidence presented. As long as there is evidence to support the conclusions reached, we will not disturb the result. Rivera v. Guida's Dairy 167 Conn. 524 (1975); Wheat v. Red Star Express Lines, 156 Conn. 245 (1956).
We affirm the Seventh District's Finding and Dismissal and dismiss claimant's appeal.
Commissioners Frank Verrilli and Donald H. Doyle concur.