CASE NO. 168 CRD-5-82Workers’ Compensation Commission
AUGUST 14, 1985
The claimant-appellee was represented by Charles Flynn, Esq.
The respondent-appellant was represented by Thomas Parisot, Esq., Corporation Counsel, City of Waterbury.
This Petition for Review from the September 9, 1982 Finding and Award of the Commissioner at Large, acting for the Fifth District was argued October 28, 1983 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of Commissioners A. Paul Berte, Rhoda Loeb and Frank J. Verrilli.
OPINION
FRANK J. VERRILLI, Commissioner.
On and for some long time prior to January 30, 1980, the claimant, Clayton Duncan, was employed as a regular police officer by the City of Waterbury.
On January 30, 1980, the claimant worked his full day shift as a Waterbury police officer. Having completed his assigned tour of duty he returned to his home and prepared to attend an evening church service. Upon preparing to exit his apartment for the trip to church the claimant encountered an irate neighbor. Said neighbor was apparently angered by the fact that the claimant’s son had parked a motor vehicle in a manner that prevented the neighbor from moving his vehicle from its parking place.
As the claimant was entering his car he observed his son and his neighbor fighting. He went to the combatants telling them to “stop or something like that”. When he did so the attacking party was standing and the claimant’s son was on the ground. The claimant pushed the attacker away, and he tried to help his son off the ground when he was struck by the neighbor. The claimant suffered a left zygomatic complex fracture and a maxillary zygomatic complex fracture. The treatment of said injury required an open reduction.
The appellant agrees in his brief that a police officer is subject to call at all times and must respond to any crime that he may witness whether officially on duty or not.
The appellant claims that the Commissioner failed to consider in the decision-making process set forth in the Finding and Award the intent and purpose of the claimant’s actions.
The Commissioner found as fact in the Finding and Award (paragraph 5) that the claimant attempted to break up the fight and in doing so he suffered injuries.
Clearly it is a police officer’s duty to break up fights and maintain peace whether on duty or off duty. The conduct of the claimant and his testimony discloses that intent and justifies the finding of the Commissioner of that fact. (paragraph 9).
The power and duty of determining the facts vests in the Commissioner, the trier of facts. Czeplicki vs. Fafnir Bearing Co., 137 Conn. 454-457 (1951).
It should be noted that the respondent-appellant had the option to request a correction of the finding, pursuant to 31-301-4, Administrative Regulations. Yet such option was not pursued. Consequently, the “conclusions drawn by the Commissioner from the facts must stand unless they result from an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally or unreasonably drawn from them.” Adzima vs. UAC/Norden Division, 177 Conn. 107, 118 (1979).
Based upon the foregoing principles we cannot say that the Commissioner’s conclusions were incorrect, or that he drew illegal or unreasonable inferences from subordinate facts.
The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.
Commissioners A. Paul Berte and Rhoda Loeb concur in this opinion.