MULDOON v. NEW ENGLAND INSTALLATION, 3415 CRB-4-96-8 (11-3-1997)

JEAN MULDOON, surviving widow of JOHN MULDOON, CLAIMANT-APPELLEE v. NEW ENGLAND INSTALLATION, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., INSURER, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT and C.N. FLAGG COMPANY, EMPLOYER and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURER and KEMPER GROUP, INSURER and CROUSE NUCLEAR ENERGY, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES and ZURICH INSURANCE CO., INSURER and HOME INSURANCE CO., INSURER RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS and CUMMINGS INSULATION CO., EMPLOYER and CNA INSURANCE, INSURER, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES and AMERICAN GUARANTEE LIABILITY INSURANCE CO., INSURER, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS and SECOND INJURY FUND, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

CASE NO. 3415 CRB-4-96-8 CLAIM NO. 400017061Workers’ Compensation Commission
NOVEMBER 3, 1997

The claimant was represented by Robert Carter, Esq., Carter
Civitello.

The respondent appellants Home Insurance, Liberty Mutual Insurance, Zurich Insurance, and American Guarantee Liability Insurance were represented by James J. Sullivan, Esq., Maher Williams.

The respondents Cummings Insulation and CNA Insurance were represented by Howard Levine, Esq., Law Offices of Grant Miller.

The respondent Kemper Insurance was represented by Tracy Cleary, Esq., Law Offices of Michael Brodinsky.

The Second Injury Fund was represented by Michael Belzer, Esq., Assistant Attorney General.

This Petition for Review from the August 27, 1996 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District was heard February 28, 1997 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners James J. Metro and John A. Mastropietro.

OPINION

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN.

The respondents Liberty Mutual Insurance, Zurich-American Insurance, Home Insurance Company, and American Guarantee Liability Insurance (hereinafter “respondents”) have petitioned for review from the August 27, 1996 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District. In that decision, the trial commissioner ordered the respondents to reimburse the Fund for payments made by the Fund pursuant to § 31-301 (f). In support of their appeal, the respondents’ sole contention[1] is that there is an inadequate record for review because the trial commissioner’s decision was based on an informal hearing rather than a formal hearing.

The trial commissioner’s decision in the instant case was based upon an informal hearing. Thus, no transcript or exhibits exist regarding the underlying proceeding. Accordingly, we are unable to engage in a meaningful review and cannot properly consider this appeal in accordance with § 31-301. See Warchola v. U.S. Gypsum Specialists,11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 108, 1444 CRB 1-92-6 (June 2, 1993);Nevers v. Environmental Waste Removal,10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 96, 1166 CRD-5-91-1 (April 23, 1992);Kempesta v. Hendels Gas and Oil Co., 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 152, 998 CRD-2-90-4 (June 5, 1991).

This matter is remanded to a trial commissioner for a formal hearing.

Commissioners James J. Metro and John A. Mastropietro concur.

[1] At oral argument before this Board, Attorney James L. Sullivan specifically abandoned his argument regarding the applicability of Greenv. General Dynamics Corp., 44 Conn. App. 112 (1996).