Opinion
CASE NO. 157-CRD-6-82
NOVEMBER 8, 1982
The Claimant-Appellant was represented by Philip J. Adams, Jr., Esq.
The Respondents-Appellees were represented by James Pomeranz, Esq.
This Petition for Review from the July 28, 1982 Decision of the Chairman of the Workers' Compensation Commission, was argued September 17, 1982 before a Compensation Review Division Panel consisting of Commissioners A. Paul Berte, Robin Waller and Rhoda Loeb.
FINDING AND AWARD
The Finding and Award of the Commissioner are affirmed and adopted as the Finding and Award of the Compensation Review Division.
OPINION
This Appeal arose out of a compensable injury the claimant sustained December 3, 1976. The Commissioner found that the injury totally incapacitated the claimant from the date of injury to at least the date of hearing, and ordered compensation benefits accordingly. The Commissioner also found the claimant was entitled to a scar award under Sec. 31-308 of the Connecticut General Statutes for permanent significant scarring and disfigurement. The claimant sought payment of the scar award at the same time he was receiving total incapacity benefits. The Commissioner denied this claim citing the recent Compensation Review Division case, Smith vs. State of Connecticut, 78-CRD-2-81, 8 C.L.T. No. 10, 1 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 95 (1/4/82), which held that benefits pursuant to Sec. 31-308 are intended to be consecutive to, and not concurrent with, payments for total incapacity.
The sole issue presented on appeal is whether a claimant who is receiving total incapacity benefits pursuant to C.G.S. Sec. 31-307 is entitled to be paid concurrently a scar award to which he was found entitled pursuant to C.G.S. Sec. 31-308.
In Smith, supra, the claimant sustained various injuries as a result of which he became a paraplegic, which allowed him permanent total incapacity benefits pursuant to C.G.S. Sec. 31-307. In addition to the permanent loss of use of both legs, the claimant also suffered other permanent loss, or loss of use, of various bodily functions and systems, and had permanent significant disfigurement. The claimant in Smith argued that in addition to the award for permanent total benefits under Sec. 31-307, the Commissioner should also have awarded the concurrent payments pursuant to Sec. 31-308 for specific injuries, and permanent significant disfigurement. The claim for 31-308 benefits was denied by the Commissioner, and the Compensation Review Division affirmed the Commissioner.
We are satisfied the Smith decision is decisive of the legal question in the instant case. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is dismissed, and the Commissioner's decision is affirmed.