MARCHESSEAULT v. GUERRERA, 982 CRD-5-90-2 (5-22-91)

CHRIS MARCHESSEAULT, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT v. J. P. GUERRERA, EMPLOYER and MARYLAND CASUALTY CO., INSURER, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

CASE NO. 982 CRD-5-90-2Workers’ Compensation Commission
MAY 22, 1991

The claimant was presented by Edward T. Dodd, Esq.

The respondents were represented by Louis N. George, Esq. of Gordon, Muir and Foley.

This Petition for Review from the February 2, 1990 Memorandum of the Commissioner for the Fifth District was heard November 30, 1990 before Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners George Waldron and Donald Doyle.

OPINION

JOHN ARCUDI, CHAIRMAN.

Claimant seeks review of the Fifth District denial of his Motion to Preclude defenses.[1] The trial commissioner ruled that the disclaimer language giving the grounds of contest was sufficiently specific. See Sec. 31-297 (b) and Menzies v. Fisher, 165 Conn. 338 (1973).

Here the respondents’ disclaimer stated, “Employee’s injury did not occur in or out of the course of his employment with Guerrera Construction Company.” The trial commissioner decided that under the holding in Tovish v. Gerber Electronics, 19 Conn. App. 273
(1989) the disclaimer was sufficiently specific. Tovish held that a disclaimer which stated, “`[I]njury (heart attack) did not arise out of or in the course and scope of employment'” was sufficiently specific. Id at 274. We agree that the instant disclaimer does not appreciably differ from the language held sufficiently specific by the court in Tovish, supra.

We, therefore, affirm the ruling of the trial commissioner, and dismiss claimant’s appeal.

Commissioners George Waldron and Donald Doyle concur.

[1] For the record the present matter was before the Seventh District as a result of our Marchesseault v. J.P. Guerrera, 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 104, 850 CRD-5-89-4 (1989) in which we remanded the matter for a finding as to whether the employer’s disclaimer was sufficiently specific.