CASE NO. 25-CRD-7-80Workers’ Compensation Commission
OCTOBER 14, 1981
The claimant-appellant was represented by Richard Jacobs, Esq.
The respondent-appellee was represented by Kevin J. Maher, Esq.
This Petition for Review from the July 15, 1980 Decision of the Commissioner for the Seventh District was argued December 5, 1980 before a Compensation Review Division Panel consisting of Commissioners Rhoda Loeb, A. Paul Berte’ and Robin Waller.
Rhoda Loeb, Commissioner, A. Paul Berte’, Commissioner, Robin Waller, Commissioner
FINDING AND AWARD
1. Paragraphs 1 through 3, 5 through 14, 16, of the Commissioner’s Finding and Award in the section set forth after “The Following Facts are Found” are hereby affirmed and made part of this Finding and Award.
2. Paragraphs 1 through 4 on Page 5 of the Commissioner’s Finding and Award in the section following, “It is Hereby Found” are hereby affirmed and made part of this Finding and Award.
3. As to the other paragraphs in the Commissioner’s Finding and Award, the Award is remanded to the Commissioner for further findings of facts. The issues presented in Paragraphs 4, 15, 17 and 18 of the Commissioner’s Finding and Award must be considered by the Commissioner so that the evidence can be established.
4. Accordingly, this appeal is sustained in that it is remanded to the Commissioner for further findings as aforesaid.
OPINION
Claimant appellant’s argument is that the Commissioner erred in refusing to grant his motion to correct the finding and to find certain facts contained in his motion.
We agree that the Finding and Award issued by the Commissioner does not contain all the necessary facts. Other issues raised by appellant cannot be determined without further findings of fact. The evidence must be established, Kovacs v. Manning, Maxwell and Moore 106 Conn. 250 (1927), Mahoney v. Gamble-Desmond Company, 90 Conn. 255 (1916). McQuade v. Ashford, 130 Conn. 478
(1944).
Until the findings are adequate we cannot determine whether the award is just or not. Appellant argues that the claimant was furnished medical treatment by the respondent hospital employer and that certain evidence pertaining thereto was undisputed testimony. No finding of fact was made on this issue. Where a finding is challenged by a motion to correct, the allegations of which, in whole or part, are admitted or undisputed relevant and material facts to the issued involved should be determined. Kovacs, supra, 254.
Section 31-301-3 of the Regulations adopted by our Board of Compensation Commissioners provides for the Findings of the Commissioner to contain ultimate relevant and material facts with a statement of his conclusions. Section 31-301-4 provides for a Correction of Finding and it is for this purpose that we remand this case for further findings of fact.