THADDEUS ADAMS, CLAIMANT-APPELLEE v. AMERICAN CYANAMID CO., EMPLOYER and CIGNA PROPERTY AND CASUALTY, INSURER, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS

CASE NO. 1995 CRB-7-94-3Workers’ Compensation Commission
AUGUST 30, 1995

RULING ON MOTION FOR ARTICULATION

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN.

The claimant and the respondents have filed a joint motion for articulation of the Compensation Review Board’s decision which was issued on August 11, 1995. In support of the motion, the parties seek the correction of two sentences in our August 11, 1995 decision. Specifically, the parties seek to clarify that the March 16, 1994 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Seventh District did not reach the issue of whether the claimant’s alleged injury was compensable. We agree that the trial commissioner made the determination that there was jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s claim, and also denied the respondents’ statute of non-claim defense, but did not determine the issue of compensability.[1] Accordingly, we grant the motion for articulation.

In accordance with the above, the second sentence of the Board’s August 11, 1995 decision should read as follows: “In that finding and award, the trial commissioner concluded that there was jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s workers’ compensation claim and also denied the respondents’ statute of limitation defense pursuant to § 31-294c.” In addition, the first sentence of the third paragraph should read as follows: “In the instant case, the trial commissioner found that the claimant did not become aware of the alleged causal relationship between his asthma symptoms and his employment until he received a medical report on August 26, 1991.”

In all other respects, the August 11, 1995 decision remains the same.

Commissioners George Waldron and Amado J. Vargas concur in this articulation.

[1] On April 6, 1994, the trial commissioner sustained the claimant’s objection to the respondents’ motion to correct, in which the claimant agreed with the respondents that Findings No. 20 and 21 should be deleted because the hearings before the trial commissioner had been limited to the issues of jurisdiction and timeliness of the claim, but did not include compensability of the claim.