CASE NO. 494 CRD-6-86Workers’ Compensation Commission
JUNE 30, 1988
The claimant was represented by James L. Kestell, Esq., Kestell, Pogue Gould.
The respondents were represented by William Brown, Esq., McGann, Bartlett Brown.
This Petition for Review from the June 30, 1986 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Sixth District was heard October 2, 1987 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Rhoda Loeb and Frank Verrilli.
FINDING AND AWARD
The Sixth District Finding and Award of June 30, 1986 is affirmed and adopted as the Finding and Award of this Division.
OPINION
JOHN ARCUDI, Chairman.
Claimant and the respondent entered into two Voluntary Agreements for injuries sustained from a work-related accident August 18, 1982. The first Voluntary Agreement described the injury, “Tendonitis, secondary to strain, left radial humeral bursa, contusions, strains and pip joint, left ring finger” and was approved January 17, 1983. A second Voluntary Agreement approved October 3, 1983 categorized the injury as “Left Arm”. Claimant reported the injury to his superior August 24, 1982 and advised him of pain in his left shoulder and left ring finger. Eleven months later, Claimant complained to Dr. Albert J. Casale about difficulty with the right shoulder. In October, 1983 Claimant described symptoms in the left middle finger to Dr. Sam Pinkes. These symptoms related to a ganglion which was surgically removed and found to be causally related to the August 18, 1982 injury.
The Sixth District Commissioner’s June 30, 1986 Finding and Award concluded that the right shoulder and left middle finger conditions, although not specifically described in either of the two Voluntary Agreements, did arise out of the August 18, 1982 injury and were therefore compensable. Respondents argue Claimant did not notify the employer of the additional disabling conditions until more than one year from the date of the accident and thus the claim is time barred under Sec. 31-294, C.G.S. Further, they argue it was error to open the voluntary award in the absence of a Motion to Reopen. The commissioner held that the recitation of specific disabling conditions in the Voluntary Agreements submitted did not foreclose Claimant from receiving benefits for other conditions flowing from the August 18, 1982 injury. We agree.
Our holding in Norman Hebert vs. New Departure Hyatt Bearings, 4 Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 94, 300 CRD-6-84 (June 12, 1987), aff’d per curiam, 14 Conn. App. 819 (May 18, 1988) is dispositive of the issues here raised. The Voluntary Agreements establish that Respondents received notice of the injury well within the time limitations of Sec. 31-294[1] , and there is evidence to support the commissioner’s conclusions that the subsequent conditions resulted from the August 18, 1982 injury. Our review is limited to a determination of whether there was evidence to support his findings and whether the conclusions drawn were contrary to law or based on impermissible or unreasonable inferences from the subordinate facts, Fair v. People’s Savings Bank, 207 Conn. 535 (1988); Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division, 177 Conn. 107 (1979).
We, therefore, affirm the Sixth District Commissioner’s June 30, 1986 Finding and Award.
Commissioners Rhoda Loeb and Frank Verrilli concur.