CASE NO. 3383 CRB-6-96-7Workers’ Compensation Commission
MARCH 25, 1997
The claimant was represented by Harvey Levine, Esq.
The respondents were represented by Neil Ambrose, Esq., Letizia
This Motion to Submit Additional Evidence, which was filed by the claimant in conjunction with the claimant’s Petition for Review from the July 11, 1996 Finding and Denial of the Commissioner for the Sixth District, was heard January 24, 1997 before a Compensation Review Board Panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and commissioners James J. Metro and John A. Mastropietro.
RULING ON MOTION TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN.
The claimant has filed a Motion to Submit Additional Evidence in conjunction with her appeal from the July 11, 1996 Finding and Denial of the trial commissioner acting for the Sixth District. In that decision, the trial commissioner determined that the claimant’s obesity and her condition of meralgia paresthetica were not caused by a compensable injury to her back which had occurred on November 2, 1992. In addition, the trial commissioner determined that the claimant was not eligible to receive discretionary benefits pursuant to § 31-308a. In her motion to submit additional evidence, the claimant seeks to present a letter dated November 12, 1996 from the claimant’s attorney to the claimant’s treating physician, Dr. Steckler, and Dr. Steckler’s response letter dated November 26, 1996.
In support of this motion, the claimant contends that this additional evidence will “clarify the issues” raised in the trial commissioner’s decision. The claimant contends that this information was not supplied during the formal hearing because the claimant “was unaware of any such ambiguity in the evidence presented.” However, it is the claimant’s burden to recognize and resolve any inconsistencies in the evidence at the formal hearing, whether or not those discrepancies seemed significant to the claimant at the time of the hearing. Peters v. Corporate Air,
Inc., 1679 CRB-5-93-3 (March 14, 1994); Lesczynski v. New BritainMemorial Hospital, 10 Conn. Workers Comp. Rev. Op. 205, 208-9, 1289 CRD-6-91-9 (Dec. 2, 1992). Moreover, a motion to submit additional evidence may not properly be used to alter a party’s evidentiary decisions regarding the presentation of evidence at a formal hearing.Lesczynski, supra; Lange v. J B Excavating Paving,11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 42, 1249 CRD-3-91-6 (March 18, 1993).
We conclude that the claimant has failed to show good reason for presenting a medical opinion after the formal hearing had been closed. SeeLesczynski, supra. Moreover, the claimant offers no indication that the proffered evidence was really new or that it was undiscoverable with due diligence at the time of the original hearings. Id., see also Murdock v.Squires, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 64, 66, 550 CRD-7-87 (Dec. 1, 1988). We thus conclude that the claimant has failed to satisfy the requirements of Conn. Agencies Reg. § 31-301-9.
The claimant’s Motion to Submit Additional Evidence is denied.
Commissioners James J. Metro and John A. Mastropietro concur.