CASE NO. 1124 CRD-7-90-10Workers’ Compensation Commission
APRIL 23, 1992
Claimant was represented by Victor M. Ferrante, Esq. and Edward Cleary, Esq., Ferrante and Cleary.
Respondent was represented by Michael L. Tierney, Esq., Cotter, Cotter Sohon.
This Petition for Review from the October 15, 1990 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner for the Seventh District was heard September 27, 1991 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of Commissioners Frank Verrilli, George Waldron and Angelo L. dos Santos.
OPINION
ANGELO L. dos SANTOS, COMMISSIONER.
Claimant petitions for review of the October 15, 1990 Finding and Dismissal by the Seventh District Commissioner where the commissioner concluded that the claimant failed to sustain her burden of proof as to the compensability of an alleged injury to her feet.
At the hearing, claimant contended that the employment-related exposure to the cold and wet floors resulted in a symptomatic episode of a cold injury referred to as Raynaud’s Syndrome. The respondent disputed the causal relationship between claimant’s employment and her alleged injury. Certain facts were stipulated to but the material facts relating to causation and the work-related exposure were disputed by the parties.
Claimant presented the following issues on appeal 1) whether the trial commissioner erred in his conclusion that the claimant’s injury to her feet was not compensable and was not reasonably supported by the evidence, and 2) whether the trial commissioner erred in his conclusion that the Claimant’s injury to her feet was not compensable was reasonably supported by subordinate factual findings.
The Finding and Dismissal of the trial commissioner includes very few actual findings of fact. Instead the decision contains many references to evidence presented at the hearing. However, the recital of evidence does not form the basis of factual findings unless it is so declared in the commissioner’s decision and a mere recital of evidence is insufficient to support a legal conclusion. Administrative Regulation Sec. 31-301-3 provides:
The finding of the commissioner should contain the ultimate relevant and material facts essential to the case at hand and found by him, together with a statement of his conclusions and the claims of law made by the parties. It should not contain excerpts from evidence or merely evidential facts, nor the reasons for his conclusions. The opinions, beliefs, reasons and argument of the commissioner should be expressed in the memorandum of decision, if any be filed, so far as they may be helpful in the decision of the case.
See also, Balkus v. Terry Steam Turbine Co., 167 Conn. 170, 173
(1974); Hartz v. Hartford Faience Co., 90 Conn. 539, 540 (1916); Robinson v. Allied Grocers Cooperative, Inc., 39 Conn. Sup. 386, 388 (1983).
In the instant case, we are unable to discern the trial commissioner’s factual basis which resulted in his legal conclusion. Thus, we are unable to review the decision on appeal.
We, therefore, remand the instant matter to allow the trial commissioner to recite factual findings that support his conclusion.
Commissioners Frank Verrilli and George Waldron concur.