Where, however, the commissioner has failed to take some step necessary properly to present the issues for consideration by this court, a motion to the court that he be directed to do so is proper. Taylor v. St. Paul's Universalist Church, 107 Conn. 248, 250, 140 A. 124; and see Sorrentino v. Cersosimo, 103 Conn. 426, 428, 130 A. 672. The ruling by the court upon such a motion is not itself a basis of an appeal, but may be assigned as error in an appeal taken from a final judgment later rendered in the case. Balestiere v. Cersosimo, 102 Conn. 702, 130 A. 238. The distinction lies in the fact that in the latter situation some further action is necessary to perfect the appeal, so that the issues may be adjudicated by the court, while the former involves a decision upon a proper appeal record.
The Superior Court, in addition to various other corrections to the finding, also made additions to the effect following: On April 14th, 1934, blood tests taken of the claimant showed that he was suffering from syphilis. After receiving treatment for this trouble from the town of Enfield, where he lived, he was, on July 7th, 1934, taken to the Hartford Hospital and treated for syphilis until August 31st of that year; and, after his discharge, for a further period of two weeks returned for antisyphilitic injections and was later examined in New York at St. Vincent's Hospital. These facts found by the Superior Court should have been added by the commissioner as they were undisputed. Northam v. Bunnell Transportation Co., Inc., 118 Conn. 312, 313, 171 A. 837; Senzamici v. Waterbury Castings Co., 115 Conn. 446, 450, 161 A. 860; Sorrentino v. Cerososimo, 103 Conn. 426, 428, 130 A. 672. After making the various corrections to the finding, the Superior Court ordered the case remanded to the commissioner to take further evidence and for a further finding of facts — first, as to whether the claimant complained of loss of vision; and, second, for a finding of the subordinate facts upon which the commissioner based his conclusion that the injury to the left eye caused loss of vision in the right. One reason for the action of the Superior Court in remanding the case for a further finding of facts was that it appeared to the court that the experts who testified before the commissioner in behalf of the claimant based their opinions in part upon an assumption that the claimant had complained to the doctors who treated him of loss of vision.
They are to be construed with this object in view. In Sorrentino v. Cersosimo, 103 Conn. 426, 429, 130 A. 672, it was held improper for the appellant to file with the commissioner an uncertified transcript of all the evidence and require the commissioner to cull out therefrom the portions that might be relevant to the corrections requested. On the other hand, where the corrections involved require a consideration of the entire evidence or the parts of the evidence relevant and material are so inextricably involved with the rest of it as to make it impracticable to separate them, it is proper to attach the entire evidence to the motion.
MALTBIE, C. J. The plaintiff was awarded compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act as a dependent of Frederic Northam. The commissioner in his finding simply stated that, while the decedent was proceeding toward Waterbury with a truck owned by the defendant employer and operated by one of its drivers, he was instantly killed by falling under its wheels, and that the accident arose out of and in the course of the decedent's employment. Under this scant finding it is impossible to review the correctness of the conclusion of the commissioner, and we reiterate that it is the duty of a commissioner to find the relevant subordinate facts upon which his conclusions are based, whenever he has reason to believe that a party to the proceedings intends to attack those conclusions by appeal. Sorrentino v. Cersosimo, 103 Conn. 426, 428, 130 A. 672; Senzamici v. Waterbury Castings Co., 115 Conn. 446, 450, 161 A. 860. In the case before us, it must have been evident to the commissioner, at least when the motion to correct his finding was filed, that a finding as to the circumstances of the accident would be necessary to present the questions which the defendants desired to raise upon the appeal, and he should have then, if not before, made a finding as to those circumstances.
The conclusions reached by the commissioner and by the Superior Court, must be tested by the subordinate facts set out in the finding, and by those alone. Sorrentino v. Cersosimo, 103 Conn. 426, 429, 130 A. 672; Rainey v. Tunnel Coal Co., 93 Conn. 90, 93, 105 A. 333; Swanson v. Latham, 92 Conn. 87, 90, 101 A. 492. If some of the facts found are legally inconsistent with the conclusion reached, it presents a reversible error of law. Palumbo v. Fuller Co., 99 Conn. 353, 355, 356, 122 A. 63; Kugel v. Angell, 74 Conn. 546, 550, 51 A. 533; Nolan v. New York, N. H. H.R. Co., 70 Conn. 159, 176, 39 A. 115.
The exception in the statute looks primarily to the number of employees the particular employer has and only incidentally to the circumstances of the employment of each. See Green v. Benedict, 102 Conn. 1, 128 A. 20; Schneider v. Raymond, 103 Conn. 49, 130 A. 73; Sorrentino v. Cersosimo, 103 Conn. 426, 130 A. 672; Guse v. Industrial Commission, 189 Wis. 471, 205 N.W. 428; LaCroix v. Frechette, 50 R. I. 90, 93, 145 A. 314; Vandergriff v. Shepard, 39 Ga. App. 791, 148 S.E. 596. In Schneider v. Raymond, supra, p. 53, we said of the decision in Green v. Bene-dict, supra: "As the reasoning of that opinion necessarily implies, the statutory exception refers to the size of the group of the persons employed throughout the period in question, and not to the total number of persons who may have entered and left the employment from the beginning to the end of the period.
The Commissioner's conclusions, of course, must be tested by the subordinate facts found by him and no resort can be had to the evidence for this purpose, where there is a lack of such facts in the finding. Sorrentino vs. Cersosimo, 103 Conn. 426, 429. It is not enough that a fact be found from a medical opinion. The grounds on which such medical opinion is based, should, also, appear.
The first of the appellant's claims therefore seeks relief from the Court through a correction of the Finding which in the absence of a proper motion can not be granted. The second claim presents a question which essentially is whether the Commissioner reached an illegal and illogical conclusion from the subordinate facts contained in the Finding and Award. If the conclusion is not of this character it can not be disturbed by this court on appeal. (Sorrentino vs. Cersosimo, 103 Conn. 429.) An examination of the Finding as filed discloses that the Commissioner has found that under a previous Finding and Award Filed June 5th, 1930, Dr. Francis H. Reilly was designated to treat the claimant and that the claimant has been under his care ever since; that Dr. Reilly and Dr. William F. Verdi have, during the past winter, repeatedly advised the claimant to submit to an operation for the herniae from which he is suffering; that if the herniae are corrected the chances of the claimant's recovery will be greatly increased; that the surgical treatment for the correction of said herniae offered by the respondents is proper, reasonable and necessary, and that the claimant has refused to accept the same and submit to the recommended operation.
Nothing filed by the claimant references where in the record we might find support for her contentions that the trier erred or abused her discretion in concluding as she did. Gonzalez v. Meriden-Wallingford Hospital, 10 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 127, 1178 CRD-8-91-2 (May 21, 1992) (not the obligation of the Compensation Review Board to cull out parts of the record supporting appellant's claims). See also, Thornton v. Kabel, 15 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 353, 3027 CRB-4-95-3 (June 26, 1996);Capasso v. Fusco Corporation, 13 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 30, 1622 CRB-3-93-1, 1920 CRB-3-93-11 (November 8, 1994); Horkheimer v. Stratford, 4 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 139, 163 CRD-4-82 (December 31, 1987) citing Sorrentino v. Cersosimo, 103 Conn. 426, 429 (1925). We therefore dismiss the claimant's appeal from the March 6, 2008 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Seventh District.
As we have noted on other occasions it is not the responsibility of the commissioner to cull out the pertinent parts of the record which support the corrections sought by the appellant. See,Horkheimer v. Stratford, 4 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 139, 142, 163 CRD-4-82 (December 31, 1987) citing Sorrentino v.Cersosimo, 103 Conn. 426 (1925). See also, Capasso v. FuscoCorporation, 13 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 30, 1622 CRB-3-93-1, 1920 CRB-3-93-11 (November 8, 1994).