FOURNIER v. SEARS, ROEBUCK COMPANY, 908 CRD-7-89-8 (2-4-91)

JAMES FOURNIER, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT vs. SEARS, ROEBUCK COMPANY, EMPLOYER and ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURER, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

CASE NO. 908 CRD-7-89-8Workers’ Compensation Commission
FEBRUARY 4, 1991

The claimant was represented by Edward T. Dodd, Jr., Esq.

The respondents were represented by Jeffrey Schwartz, Esq., Montstream May,

This Petition for Review from the August 24, 1989 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Seventh District was heard June 29, 1990 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners A. Thomas White, Jr. and James Metro.

OPINION

JOHN ARCUDI, CHAIRMAN.

Claimant has appealed the Seventh District August 24, 1989 Finding and Award. If, that ruling commissioner awarded claimant pursuant to Sec. 31-312(a) payment for time actually lost from work due to medical treatment, including physical therapy which was prescribed by the claimant’s authorized treating physician. The commissioner did not award compensation for time spent due to medical treatment during nonwork hours.[1]

The issue is whether claimant should receive compensation for the time lost in medical treatment during non-work hours. Sec. 31-312(a) provides in pertinent part;

Where the medical attention or treatment is provided at a time other than during the employee’s regular working hours and the employee is not otherwise receiving or eligible to receive workers’ Compensation weekly benefits, he shall be compensated for the time involved for such medical treatment as though it were time lost from the job at the rate of his average hourly earnings and shall be paid for the cost of necessary transportation as herein provided.

Under Sec. 31-312(a) the only grounds for denial of payment for non-work hours medical treatment is if the claimant were “receiving or eligible to receive workers’ compensation weekly benefits.” As the commissioner made no finding concerning receipt of workers’ compensation benefits, we cannot determine the issue involved. See Griffin v. General Dynamics Corp. 868 CRD 2-89-5 (decided Sept. 27, 1990). We, therefore, remand the matter for further proceedings to ascertain whether claimant was receiving or eligible to receive workers’ compensation weekly benefits.

Commissioners A. Thomas White, Jr. and James Metro concur.

[1] For the record we note that the respondents filed at, appeal petition but did not file any Reasons of Appeal although pursuant to a Motion for Extension of Time to File Reasons of Appeal the respondents were granted until September 20, 1989 to file their Reasons of Appeal. We therefore dismiss the respondents’ appeal petition.