Every year there are numerous Workers’ Compensation cases that significantly impact employers, employees and the way companies do business. Here are our selections, and brief summaries, of the most interesting and noteworthy cases in 2019.
Letaj v. ATMI, Incorporated, et al, Case No. 6186 CRB-5-17-4 (January 11, 2019)
The claimant sustained compensable injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident. He subsequently commenced a suit against the tortfeasor, and provided notice of this suit to his employer. Thereafter, the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier sent a letter asserting it lien to the tortfeasor’s attorney. When the third party case settled, the claimant argued that the carrier was not entitled to reimbursement because the lien letter had not been sent directly to the tortfeasor. Although the trial commissioner found in favor of the claimant, this decision was reversed on appeal. The CRB held that service on a party’s attorney is sufficient to comply with the lien requirements of C.G.S. § 31-293. The Board noted that to hold otherwise would violate the long-standing public policy against double recovery.
Biggs v. Combined Insurance Company of America, et al, Case No. 6247 CRB-7-18-2 (April 12, 2019)
The claimant was a traveling salesperson who sought benefits for injuries sustained when she slipped and fell on ice while walking to her car before her first meeting of the day. At the formal hearing she testified that she worked out of her home on a sun porch where there was a desk and file cabinets, and that prior to leaving her house that morning she went to her desk to prepare for the day. In rejecting her claim for benefits the trial commissioner found that there was no convincing evidence that the claimant maintained a “home office” at her employer’s request, or that her job required her to meet clients at her house. In addition, the claimant’s failure to provide documentation that she declared the sun porch to be a home office when filing her taxes was deemed to be “a glaring deficiency in her case.” The Board upheld the commissioner’s decision, finding that the claimant was injured in carrying out activities in preparation for work, and that her work day did not start until she arrived at her first meeting.
Rausner v. Pitney Bowes, 190 Conn. App. 541 (June 11, 2019)
The claimant was injured while on a business trip to Spokane, Washington. He and his colleagues had gone to a bar/restaurant for an employer-sponsored social gathering at 5:30 p.m. The claimant immediately began consuming alcohol, and made inappropriate sexual comments to his co-workers. He and some colleagues then went to a neighboring restaurant at 8:00 p.m. where he continued to engage in the same behavior. When he left the restaurant shortly after midnight he was assaulted and sustained life-threatening injuries. The trial commissioner rejected his claim for benefits, finding that the business purpose of the first social gathering ended when he left that establishment, and the remainder of the evening was purely social in nature. The commissioner further found that the claimant’s intoxication, sexual comments, and continued drinking constituted a substantial deviation from the furtherance of the employer’s business interests. The CRB and Appellate Court affirmed this decision.
Vincent Greco v. Precision Devices, Inc., Case No. 6265 CRB-8-1804 (June 17, 2019)
The claimant sustained a compensable injury to his neck and left arm in 2003. In 2009 he came under the care of an interventional pain management specialist who prescribed opioid medication including Opana, Percocet, and OxyContin. A 2011 spinal cord stimulator trial failed, and at that time he was given a prescription for oxycodone. When these medications lost their efficacy he was prescribed Valium, fentanyl patches, and Kadian (morphine). At a 2014 RME the claimant was found to be taking Kadian 100 mg bid, Klonopin bid, Percocet 15 mg 8 times per day, Soma three times per day, gabapentin 600 mg three times a day, Valium 10 mg three times a day, and Doxepin 10 mg. The RME physician recommended that the claimant undergo a comprehensive detoxification program. The respondents filed a Form 43 based on the position that the claimant failed to obtain reasonable medical care consistent with this opinion. Following a formal hearing the Commissioner ordered the claimant to choose between 2 inpatient detoxification facilities, and provided a timeline for the respondents to be relieved of the obligation to pay for opioid medication if the claimant refused to obtain inpatient treatment. On appeal the CRB found that the commissioner reached a reasonable conclusion and upheld his finding.
Woodbury-Correa v. Reflexite, 190 Conn. App. 623 (June 18, 2019)
The claimant filed a Form 30C on April 18, 2009 alleging repetitive trauma injuries. The 30C was received by the Commissioner and respondent on April 20, 2009. On May 5, 2009 the respondent sent a Form 43 denying compensability to the claimant’s attorney via certified mail. On July 24, 2019 the respondent faxed the Form 43 to the Commission. The claimant filed a Motion to Preclude which was denied by the trial commissioner, and that decision was upheld by the CRB. The Appellate Court reversed the decision, finding that neither the language on a Form 43 or in C.G.S. § 31-321 allow the filing of a Form 43 via facsimile transmission; instead both the form and the statute require filing either in person, or by registered or certified mail. The Court also rejected the respondent’s assertion that it was “impossible” to issue payments within the twenty-eight day period following the filing of the Form 30C since there was no claim for indemnity or medical benefits for over five years after the date of injury. The Court found that since the respondent was contesting liability rather than the extent of disability, it was required to file a Form 43 within the requisite time period.
Caye v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator, 6296 CRB-1-18-11 (October 29, 2019)
The claimant sustained catastrophic injuries in a work-related accident. He was prescribed medical marijuana which was found to be reasonable and necessary medical treatment. Although the insurer reimbursed the claimant for his out of pocket expenses associated with this prescription, the excess carrier subsequently refused to authorize the reimbursement on the grounds that marijuana was a controlled substance and illegal under federal law. The CRB rejected the respondent’s position, and found that where a claimant can show compliance with all of the facets of a medical marijuana program and provides evidence that the marijuana is medically necessary, a respondent can be ordered to reimburse a claimant for the expenses associated with obtaining this prescription.
Clements v. Aramark Corporation, 182 Conn. App. 224 (May 29, 2018)
The claimant was walking on the employer’s property when she became light-headed and passed out, falling backward and hitting her head on asphalt. She was taken to the hospital where she was diagnosed with “cardiogenic syncope.” The commissioner found that her head injury was not compensable because it did not arise out of or in the course of her employment, and the Compensation Review Board affirmed this finding. The Appellate Court reversed this decision, ruling that although the personal infirmity that caused her to fall did not arise out her employment, since her head injury resulted from hitting the ground at her workplace, she was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits.
The respondents appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, and oral argument was held on October 25, 2019. It is anticipated that a decision will be issued some time in 2020.