CASE NO. 542 CRD-1-87Workers’ Compensation Commission
OCTOBER 19, 1988
The claimant was represented by Robert A. Ziegler, Esq., and Suzann L. Beckett, Esq., Eisenberg, Anderson, Michalik Lynch.
The respondents were represented by James Pomeranz, Esq. and Douglas Drayton, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton Stabnick.
This Petition for Review from the December 15, 1986 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner at Large acting for the First District was heard May 20, 1988 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Gerald Kolinsky and Andrew Denuzze.
OPINION
JOHN ARCUDI, Chairman.
Evidential issues are the only basis for claimant’s appeal from the December 15, 1986 Finding and Dismissal of her claim. She had alleged that she injured her back in the week ending Sunday, October 2, 1983. She later alleged the date of injury to be September 26, Monday or September 25, Sunday. There was some testimony from the employer and also from the claimant herself that she was not at work the week ending October 2. As she had previously suffered back injuries not related to the work, she had been treated by Dr. Alan J. Butowsky, a chiropractor, since June 10, 1983. He gave her an “out of work slip” dated September 26, 1983 in which he made no reference to a workplace injury.
The trial Commissioner ruled on the basis of the evidence we have above listed that the claimant failed to sustain her burden of proof and therefore dismissed the claim. We will not substitute our findings for his when such findings are based on conflicting evidence and depend on the weight and credibility to be accorded the testimony and the evidence presented below, Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division, 177 Conn. 107
(1979). Moreover, we do not conduct a de novo review of the evidence, Fair v. People’s Savings Bank, 207 Conn. 535
(1988). There was ample evidence below for the trial Commissioner to rule as he did.
In the district proceedings claimant moved to preclude defenses under Sec. 31-297b, C.G.S. The Commissioner ruled there had been no proper notice of claim to have that statute’s irrebuttable presumption of compensability apply. As this issue was not pursued in the claimant’s brief, we deem it abandoned, Hartford National Bank Trust Co. v. Tucker, 195 Conn. 218, note 1 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 845 (1985) citing Pastir v. Bielski, 174 Conn. 193 (1978). See also, Sachem’s Head Assn. v. Lufkin, 168 Conn. 365, 366 (1975) and Practice Book Sec. 4065.
We affirm the decision below and dismiss the appeal.
Commissioners Gerald Kolinsky and Andrew Denuzze concur.