CASE NO. 758 CRD-4-88-8Workers’ Compensation Commission
JANUARY 18, 1990
The claimant was represented by Gerard S. Spiegel.
The Respondents were represented by George Waldron, Esq. and John Greiner, Esq., both of Murphy and Beane.
This Petition for Review from the July 29, 1988 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Fourth District was heard September 29, 1989 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners A. Thomas White, Jr. and James J. Metro.
OPINION
JOHN ARCUDI, CHAIRMAN.
Claimant seeks review of the Fourth District July 29, 1988 Finding and Award. At issue is whether the trial commissioner erred in concluding that claimant was not entitled to the Sec. 31-308(a) benefits sought. She argues her job search efforts were legally sufficient to entitle her to continued full weekly benefits under Sec. 31-308(a).
Sec. 31-308(a) provides in pertinent part.
If any injury for which compensation is provided under the provisions of this chapter results in partial incapacity, there shall be paid to the injured employee a weekly compensation equal to sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of the difference between the wages currently earned by an employee in a position comparable to the position held by such injured employee prior to his injury and the amount he is able to earn after such injury, except that when (1) the physician attending an injured employee certifies that such employee is unable to perform his usual work but is able to perform other work, (2) such employee is ready and willing to perform such other work in the same locality and (3) no such other work is available, such employee shall be paid his full weekly compensation subject to the provisions of this section.
Whether a claimant has satisfied the necessary statutory elements is a factual determination to be made by the trial commissioner. Reiske v. State of Connecticut, 2 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 84, 128-CRD-4-82 (1984). We cannot substitute our conclusion for the trial commissioner’s. Our review is limited to determining whether the trier’s conclusion was contrary to law, or based on impermissible or unreasonable factual references. Fair v. People’s Savings Bank, 207 Conn. 535
(1988).
Here the commissioner found “[t]he claimant made many of her contacts for light duty work by telephone and she has not been filing applications. Additionally, she contacted several employers numerous times.” See July 29, 1988 Finding and Award, paragraph #11. It was also found that claimant had limited her search to light duty nursing positions. See July 29, 1988 Finding and Award, paragraph #’s 10 and 14. Claimant contends that Reiske, supra, holds that a nurse’s aide who limits her light duty search for employment to hospitals within her labor market area has complied with the statutory requirement that an employee be ready and willing to perform other work. However, Reiske also holds as noted above that the determination of whether the claimant was ready and willing to perform such other work is a factual determination which will not be overturned unless it constituted an abuse of the trial commissioner’s discretion. Our review of the record does not so indicate.
We therefore dismiss the appeal and affirm the conclusion of the commissioner regarding claimant’s claim for further Sec. 31-308(a) benefits.
Commissioners A. Thomas White, Jr. and James J. Metro concur.