Valiante v. Burns Construction Company, No

4 Citing cases

  1. Bailey v. State, No

    5603 CRB 1 (Conn. Work Comp. 2011)

    We find recent cases such as DiDonato v. Greenwich/Board of Education, 5431 CRB-7-09-2 (May 18, 2010) and Valiante v. Burns ConstructionCompany, 5393 CRB-4-08-11 (October 15, 2009) on point. "We have noted that on occasion, at the commencement of a formal hearing either the advocates or the trial commissioner will state on the record that an issue not specified on the hearing notice will be considered. See Valiante v. Burns Construction Company, 5393 CRB-4-08-11 (October 15, 2009) and Goulbourne v. State/Department of Correction, 5192 CRB-1-07-1 (January 17, 2008)", DiDonato, supra. When a trial commissioner properly advises the parties of the issue at hand at the start of a formal hearing, we generally find any issues as to inadequate notice have been cured.

  2. Lembrick v. State, No

    5543 CRB 1 (Conn. Work Comp. 2011)

    Our reasoning herein is this constitutes an issue as to the weight and relevance of evidence. In Valiante v. Burns Construction Company, Inc., 5393 CRB-4-08-11 (October 15, 2009) we pointed out "decisions regarding the relevance and remoteness of evidence in workers' compensation proceedings fall solely within the discretion of the trier of fact". LaMontagne v. F FConcrete Corporation, 5198 CRB-4-07-2 (February 25, 2008) stands for a similar proposition "a trial commissioner has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence, and an evidentiary ruling will not be set aside absent a clear abuse of that discretion."

  3. DiDonato v. Town of Green. Bd. of Edu., No

    5431 CRB 7 (Conn. Work Comp. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    Therefore, the trial commissioner did not provide the parties the same notice which occurred in Valiante. In Valiante v. Burns Construction Company, 5393 CRB-4-08-11 (October 15, 2009) the hearing notice did not contain a specific representation that the trial commissioner would consider a request to depose a witness. Upon convening the formal hearing the trial commissioner then announced on the record that the sole purpose of the formal hearing would be to consider the deposition request and adjourned the hearing for two weeks to enable the respondent to present a defense.

  4. Goulbourne v. State, No

    5461 CRB 1 (Conn. Work Comp. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    In reaching this conclusion, we note that our reasoning herein is consistent with our reasoning inGilbert, supra, where we also upheld the commissioner's decision not to admit an RME. See also Valiante v. Burns Construction Company, 5393 CRB-4-08-11 (October 15, 2009). This Commission's case law has been unequivocal.