KELESIDES v. BONGIORNO’S SUPERMARKET, 152 CRD-7-82 (5-31-84)


ANASTASIOS KELESIDES, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT vs. BONGIORNO’S SUPERMARKET, EMPLOYER and TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., INSURER, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

CASE NO. 152 CRD-7-82Workers’ Compensation Commission
MAY 31, 1984

The Claimant-Appellant was represented by George C. Furkiotis, Esq.

The Respondents-Appellees were represented by Douglas Drayton, Esq. and Richard Stabnick, Esq., with whom on the brief was Lucas D. Strunk, Esq.

This Petition for Review from the June 23, 1982 Decision of the Commissioner for the Seventh District was argued on June 24, 1983 before a Compensation Review Division Panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi and Commissioners Rhoda Loeb and Frank Verrilli.

FINDING AND AWARD

The Finding and Award of the Commissioner is affirmed and adopted as the Finding and Award of this Division.

OPINION

JOHN ARCUDI, Chairman.

In this appeal from the Seventh District the sole issue is the extent of permanent partial disability of the right leg. The Commissioner ordered a disability of twenty-five percent of the leg or 59.5 weeks of compensation to be paid to the claimant. Claimant’s appeal maintains that the percentage should have been higher.

The evidence relating to permanent disability before the Commissioner came from two orthopedic surgeons, Dr. Robert Orth of Stamford and Dr. Apostolos P. Tambakis of Brooklyn, New York. Dr. Orth’s opinion was that claimant had a twenty-five per cent permanency and Dr. Tambakis concluded the permanency to be eighty per cent of the leg. Both experts were qualified specialists in the field.

The Commissioner chose to credit Dr. Orth’s conclusions. Under our law, the trial Commissioner is the finder of fact and his conclusion will not be disturbed by us unless they were made without a basis in the evidence, Grady v. St. Mary’s Hospital, 179 Conn. 662 (1980), Cortes vs. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporation, 61 CRD-3-81, 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 173, 182 (8/18/82). Dr. Orth’s testimony was certainly such a sufficient evidentiary basis.

Therefore we affirm the decision of the Commissioner and dismiss the appeal.

Commissioners Loeb and Verrilli join in this opinion.