CASE NO. 217 CRD-5-84Workers’ Compensation Commission
JUNE 20, 1988
The claimant was represented by Donna J. Brooks, Esq., Dixon Brooks.
The respondents-employer and insurer were represented by James L. Pomeranz, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton Stabnick.
This Petition for Review from the March 26, 1984 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner for the Fifth District was heard October 25, 1985 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of Commissioners Frank Verrilli, Andrew Denuzze and Rhoda Loeb.
FINDING AND DISMISSAL
A Formal hearing was held January 6, 1984 and a Stipulation of Facts was entered into and marked Claimant Exhibit 1.
The issue is whether the accidental injury sustained by the Claimant on October 13, 1982 was one arising out of and in the course of his employment.
1) The facts found are those contained in Claimant’s Exhibit 1 and the following:
a) It is found that the Claimant’s accidental injury of October 13, 1982 did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.
WHEREFORE IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by this Division that the Claimant’s claim for benefits is DISMISSED.
OPINION
FRANK VERRILLI, Commissioner.
By agreement the parties stipulated to certain facts and submitted the matter for decision to the Fifth District Commissioner who, in addition, heard testimony of the claimant. He issued a Finding and Dismissal of Claim March 26, 1984, concluding that the injury sustained by the claimant did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. Claimant appealed.
On October 13, 1982 the claimant was employed as an assistant sales manager with the employer Electrolux Corporation. The duties of the assistant sales manager included but were not limited to training new sales personnel, and making late evening phone calls to check on them as described in the Plan of Action October 1982 booklet which were instructions to the claimant, as assistant sales manager.
During the months of October and April the employer expected a higher performance from its employees, using incentive contests. On October 13, 1982 the claimant was working in the Springfield, Massachusetts office of the employer and left at approximately 8:30 p.m. The claimant drove to Southwick, Massachusetts to pick up a bracelet which was needed as a prize for a sales meeting the next morning. After picking up the bracelet, the claimant proceeded directly towards his home in Winsted, Connecticut on his usual route. While driving home the claimant was involved in an automobile accident sustaining injuries.
The issue presented is whether the accidental injury sustained by the claimant on October 13, 1982 was one arising out of and in the course of his employment.
Unless the trial Commissioner’s findings and conclusions were “the result of an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally or unreasonably drawn from them,” the conclusions must stand, Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division, 177 Conn. 107, 118 (1979). As we did not find such error of law or unreasonable conclusion, we cannot upset the findings and conclusions of the trial Commissioner.
We, therefore, affirm the Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner of the Fifth District.
Commissioners Andrew Denuzze and Rhoda Loeb concur.