CASE NO. 160 CRD-6-82Workers’ Compensation Commission
DECEMBER 14, 1983
The Claimant-Appellant was represented by Kenneth Harris Esq., with whom on the brief was Ronald E. Cassidento, Esq.
The Respondents-Appellees were represented by Edward D. O’Brien, Esq.
This Petition for Review from the August 19, 1982 Finding and Award, as corrected on March 3, 1983, of the Commissioner at Large acting for the Sixth District was argued on April 29, 1983 before a Compensation Review Division Panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi and Commissioners Gerald Kolinsky and Frank Verrilli.
FINDING AND AWARD
The Finding and Award of the Commissioner below is adopted as the Finding and Award of this Division.
The appeal of the Claimant-Appellant is DISMISSED.
This Finding and Award was written by Commissioner Gerald Kolinsky for the entire panel.
OPINION
GERALD KOLINSKY, Commissioner.
The Claimant-Appellant sustained a compensable injury to his back on January 25, 1980, which required medical care and attention.
The Claimant was treated originally by Dr. Edward Zebrowski who made referrals of the Claimant to Dr. Benjamin Whitcomb and Dr. Richard Thomas. The Claimant was also seen by Dr. Russell Bower, whose care the Commissioner found to be not authorized.
Testimony was given by Drs. Zebrowski, Bower and Whitcomb, whose opinions of the nature of injuries and extent of disability were not in agreement.
The Commissioner found that, in addition to conflicting medical opinions, the Claimant’s testimony of having fallen twenty feet from a telephone pole without immediate pain or symptoms was not credible. He further found that the Claimant had sustained injuries subsequent to the accident of January 25, 1980.
On the basis, therefore, of the medical evidence, the Claimant’s lack of credibility and evidence of subsequent injuries, the Commissioner awarded temporary total compensation benefits from the date of the accident to February 7, 1980.
It is from such Award which the Claimant has appealed, giving as Reasons of Appeal that the Commissioner’s Finding is against the weight of the evidence, that the Commissioner’s conclusions are inconsistent with the subordinate facts, that the Finding failed to conform to the Workers’ Compensation Administrative Regulations, Section 31-301-3, and that the Commissioner refused to grant the Claimant’s Motion to Correct.
On oral argument before this tribunal, counsel for the Claimant argued that Dr. Bower and Dr. Whitcomb were in a better position to judge the Claimant’s condition than was Dr. Zebrowski.
Counsel further argued that all subsequent injuries which the Claimant suffered were natural consequences of the accidental injury of January 25, 1980.
In reviewing the transcripts of this case, we are of the opinion that there was ample evidence upon which the Commissioner could find as he did. The thrust of this appeal is that the Claimant feels the Commissioner should have found facts which were more favorable to him. It is well established that, “It is within the province of the Commissioner alone to determine, on conflicting and confusing evidence, what the facts are, . . . .” Battey vs. Osborne, 96 Conn. 633, 634, (1921).
It is equally well established that an appellate panel may not change the Commissioner’s findings unless it appears, “that he has found facts without evidence, or that he could not reasonably reach the conclusions he has stated.” Battey vs. Osborne, supra, p. 634.
On the issue of weight of the evidence and credibility of the witnesses, we cannot review conclusions of the Commissioner based on such factors. This point was most recently enunciated by our Supreme Court in Adzima vs. UAC/Norden Division, 177 Conn. 107 (1979).
The Claimant’s motion for the opportunity to present additional evidence, dated February 24, 1983, is Denied.
The decision of the Commissioner is Affirmed.
Chairman Arcudi and Commissioner Verrilli join in this opinion.