CASE NO. 305 CRD-7-85Workers’ Compensation Commission
DECEMBER 23, 1986
The claimant appeared pro se. Mr. Francis J. Cuddy.
Respondents were represented by Edward S. Downes, Jr., Esq.
This Petition for Review from the February 19, 1985 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner for the Seventh District was heard December 5, 1986 before a, Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi and Commissioners Robin Waller and Andrew Denuzze.
OPINION
JOHN ARCUDI, Chairman.
Claimant appearing pro se has appealed the trial Commissioner’s denial of his claim on February 19, 1985. He alleged that he had developed basal cell carcinoma lesions as a result of being seated in a work area illuminated by fluorescent lights without diffusers. No medical testimony was presented below. Instead claimant relied on a Department of Health and Human Services memorandum and an excerpt from an article in a British medical periodical, The Lancet. The Commissioner concluded claimant had failed to demonstrate a direct causal connection between his exposure to fluorescent light and the development of basal cell carcinoma,
In order to sustain a claim for compensation a claimant must show that the disease for which he seeks compensation was proximately caused by his employment. Metall v. Aluminum Co. of America, 154 Conn. 48 (1966), Madore v. New Departure Mfg. Co., 104 Conn. 709 (1926). Issues of causation involve fact-finding determinations by a Commissioner. It is well-settled that the findings of fact made by a Commissioner will not be disturbed by this panel unless “[t]he conclusions drawn . . . result from an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally or unreasonably drawn from them.” Adzima v. U.A.C./Norden Division, 177 Conn. 107, 118 (1979). Therefore this appeal is dismissed and the Commissioner’s Finding and Dismissal is affirmed.
Commissioners Robin Waller and Andrew Denuzze concur.