JANOV v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 491 CRD-4-86 (3-27-87)

ANTHONY JANOV, CLAIMANT-APPELLEE vs. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., EMPLOYER and ELECTRIC MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURER, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS

CASE NO. 491 CRD-4-86Workers’ Compensation Commission
MARCH 27, 1987

The claimant was represented by George W. Ganim, Esq.

The respondents were represented by Edward S. Downes, Jr., Esq.

This Petition for Review from the June 20, 1986 Finding and Award of the Fourth District Commissioner was heard December 5, 1986 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Andrew Denuzze and Robin Waller.

FINDING AND AWARD

The Finding and Award of the trial Commissioner is affirmed and adopted as the Finding and Award of this tribunal.

OPINION

JOHN ARCUDI, Chairman.

The claimant sustained a compensable back injury September 25, 1974. On September 27, 1981 the claimant while operating a tow motor truck on the employer’s premises went over a hole in the concrete floor causing the truck to hit a wall. He consequently suffered a reoccurrence of the September 25, 1974 back injury symptoms[1] .

In its appeal the employer argues that the claimant’s claim for the 1981 happening is barred by Section 31-294 C.G.S. notice provisions in that the claimant did not file written notice of his 1981 injury within the year, and the claim is therefore time barred.

Respondent’s argument might have been tenable before the General Assembly amended Sec. 31-307b[2] in 1979. Previously 31-307b only referred to a “relapse from recovery.” But the 1979 amendment clearly evinced a legislative intent to have recurrences or reoccurrences relate back to the original injury. Whether or not a particular happening is a recurrence is a factual determination to be made by the trial Commissioner. Here the Fourth District Commissioner’s conclusions must stand “unless they result from an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally or unreasonably drawn from them.” Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division, 177 Conn. 107, 118 (1979). We do not so find and therefore we affirm his Finding and Award and dismiss the appeal.

Commissioners Andrew Denuzze and Robin Waller concur.

[1] It was also found by the Commissioner that on August 24, 1978 claimant sprained his back during the course of employment. Claimant received medical attention at the plant dispensary.

[2] Sec. 31-307b. Benefits after relapse from recovery. Recurrent injuries. If any employee who receives benefits under section 31-307 returns to work after recovery from his injury and subsequently suffers total or partial incapacity caused by a relapse from the recovery from, or a recurrence of, such injury, such employee shall be paid a weekly compensation equal to sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of his average weekly earnings at the time of the original injury or at the time of his relapse or at the time of the recurrence of such injury, whichever is the greater sum, subject to the maximum rate of compensation set pursuant to section 31-309 for the year in which such employee suffered the relapse or recurrent injury and the minimum rate under this chapter for said year, and provided (1) such compensation shall not continue longer than the period of total or partial incapacity following the relapse recurrent injury and (2) no employee eligible for compensation for specific injuries set forth in section 31-308 shall receive compensation under this section. . .