CHARLAND v. CITY OF HARTFORD, 417 CRD-1-85 (4-8-88)

HENRY CHARLAND, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT vs. CITY OF HARTFORD, EMPLOYER, SELF-INSURED, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

CASE NO. 417 CRD-1-85Workers’ Compensation Commission
APRIL 8, 1988

The claimant was represented by Albert McGrail, Esq. McEleney McGrail.

The respondent was represented by James Szerojko, Esq., Lisa Silvestri, Esq., and Kevin Kenny, Esq., all of the Office of Corporation Counsel.

This Petition for Review from the July 11, 1985 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner for the First District was heard March 26, 1987 before Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Darius J. Spain and Michael S. Sherman.

FINDING AND DISMISSAL

The First District Finding and Dismissal of July 11, 1985 is hereby affirmed and adopted as the Finding and Dismissal of this Division.

OPINION

JOHN ARCUDI, Chairman.

Claimant, a Hartford policeman, successfully passed a physical examination upon entry into that employment. The examination failed to reveal any evidence of heart disease or hypertension. On February 29, 1980 Claimant suffered a “subarachnoid hemorrhage and intracerebral hematoma secondary to a ruptured aneurusm (sic) of the right middle cerebral artery” which incapacitated him for a period of time. Claimant seeks benefits under Sec. 7-433c, C.G.S. These facts were stipulated.

Claimant has appealed the First District July 11, 1985 Finding and Dismissal of Claim. The only issue is whether the trial Commissioner erred in holding that Claimant failed to sustain his burden of proving that he had suffered any impairment due to hypertension or heart disease as required by Sec. 7-433c[1] .

There was conflicting medical testimony below as to whether Claimant’s aneurysm was caused by heart disease or hypertension. Testimony by Respondent’s medical expert, Dr. H. Robert Silverstein, supports the trial Commissioner’s conclusion that Claimant’s symptoms did not constitute heart disease or hypertension. As there is such evidence in the record, we will not substitute our factual findings for those of the trial Commissioner, Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division, Conn. 107 (1979); Cook v. United Aircraft Corp., 152 Conn. 214
(1964); Battey v. Osborne, 96 Conn. 633 (1921); Powers v. Hotel Bond, 89 Conn. 143 (1915).

We, therefore, affirm the trial Commissioner’s Finding and Dismissal.

Commissioners Darius J. Spain and Michael S. Sherman concur.

[1] Sec. 7-433c provides, in part, “In the event a uniformed member of a paid municipal fire department or a regular member of a paid municipal police department who successfully passed a physical examination on entry into such service, which examination failed to reveal any evidence of hypertension or heart disease, suffers either off duty or on duty any condition or impairment of health caused by hypertension or heart disease resulting in his death or his temporary or permanent, total or partial disability, he or his dependents, as the case may be, shall receive from his municipal employer compensation and medical care in the same amount and the same manner as that provided under chapter 568 if such death or disability was caused by a personal injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment and was suffered in the line of duty and within the scope of his employment, and from the municipal or state retirement system under which he is covered, he or his dependents, as the case may be, shall receive the same retirement or survivor benefits which would be paid under said system if such death or disability was caused by a personal injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment and was suffered in the line of duty and within the scope of his employment.”