CASE NO. 644 CRD-5-87Workers’ Compensation Commission
APRIL 28, 1989
The claimant was represented by Edward T. Dodd, Esq.
The respondents were represented by Scott Wilson Williams, Esq. and Kevin Maher, Esq., Maher Williams.
This Petition for Review from the Sept. 24, 1987 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Fifth District was heard Oct. 28, 1988 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Gerald Kolinsky and Michael S. Sherman.
OPINION
JOHN ARCUDI, CHAIRMAN.
Claimant suffered a compensable injury to his left and right elbow November 16, 1984. The respondent insurance carrier paid benefits until March, 1986. Respondents filed a number of Forms 36, Notices of Intention to Discontinue Payments, pursuant to Sec. 31-296, C.G.S.[1] The last Form 36 was filed August 28, 1986. Attached to it was an August 22, 1986 medical report from Dr. Michael Simms III of Waterbury outlining types of limited employment in which claimant “probably could continue to work”. The Fifth District on September 24, 1987 ruled that no “proper Form 36 was submitted or approved”. Respondents’ appeal attacks that finding.
A Motion To Dismiss the appeal has been made by the claimant arguing that the Reasons of Appeal were untimely filed on December 3, 1987. Ads. Reg. 31-302-2 Sager v. Gab Business Services, Inc., 11 Conn. App. 693 (1987) governs. As the Motion To Dismiss was not filed within ten days of appellants’ alleged omission, the motion is denied, Practice Book, Sec. 4056.
With respect to respondents’ argument that its Form 36 was valid, claimant argues that the failure to include the the treating physician on the August 28, 1986 Form rendered the document invalid as failing to comply with Sec. 31-296. For this argument Damelio v. Anaconda, Inc., 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 31, 281 CRD-5-83 (1987), aff’d, 15 Conn. App. 805 (1988) (per curiam) cert. denied, 208 Conn. 814
(1988) is the controlling precedent. There we concluded that a Form 36 lacking the attending physician’s signature complied with the statute because the physician’s report was annexed. But in the instant matter the trial Commissioner made no subordinate factual findings, and the facts found by the trial Commissioner do not adequately apprise the respondents why the Form 36 was not proper. As the Findings lacked such essential requirements, we must remand the case for further proceedings and a clearer articulation of the subordinate facts which support the ultimate conclusions reached.
We therefore, remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Commissioners Gerald Kolinsky and Michael S. Sherman concur.