CASE NO. 612 CRD-6-87Workers’ Compensation Commission
JUNE 9, 1989
The claimant appeared pro se.
The respondent-employer was represented by one of its owners, Mrs. Jacqueline Napier. The Second Injury Fund was represented by Robert Festa, Esq. and Brewster Blackall, Esq. None of the parties appeared at oral argument.
This Petition for Review from the July 7, 1987 Finding and Award of the Commissioner At Large acting For the Sixth District was heard October 28, 1988 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Robin Waller and Darius Spain.
OPINION
JOHN ARCUDI, CHAIRMAN.
Appellant here is the respondent-employer appearing pro se. It seeks review of the July 7, 1987 Finding and Award granting benefits under Chapter 568 for a foot injury April 29, 1986. Respondent contends the claimant was not an employee on that date and seeks to Re-Open and to Submit Additional Evidence.
Our review indicates the conclusions drawn by the trial Commissioner were largely the result of determining the weight and credibility of the evidence presented to him. We cannot disturb those factual findings unless found without evidence or predicated on impermissible or unreasonable factual inferences, or contrary to law. Fair v. Peoples’s Savings Bank, 207 Conn. 535, 539 (1988). We find neither eventuality here.
The Appellant alleges that it was denied an opportunity to present evidence denying claimant’s employee status because the employer received no notice of the May 13, 1987 hearing. The record shows that a hearing notice was sent via certified return receipt mail and that the return receipt card was signed by one Al Napier March 6, 1987. Further the July 7, 1987 Finding and Award indicates that Mrs. Jacqueline Napier, a co-owner, did appear before the trial Commissioner and testified. We therefore fail to see any prejudice to respondent’s rights. As Motions to Re-Open and Submit Additional Evidence are controlled by Sec. 31-315[1] C.G.S., rulings on such Motions are within the trial Commissioner’s discretion. We cannot overrule him unless his decision constituted an abuse of discretion. Wysocki v. Bradley
Hubbard Co., 113 Conn. 170 (1931). We do not so find.
We affirm the trial Commissioner’s July 7, 1987 decision and dismiss the Appeal.
Commissioners Robin Waller and Darius Spain concur.