CASE NO. 133-CRD-2-82Workers’ Compensation Commission
JULY 30, 1984
The Claimant-Appellee was represented by Nancy A. Donahue, Esq.
The Respondent-Appellant was represented by Robert G. Girard, Assistant Attorney General.
This Petition for Review from the February 4, 1982 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Second District was argued May 27, 1983 before a Compensation Review Division Panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners A. Paul Berte and Frank Verrilli.
FINDING AND AWARD
The Finding and Award of the Second District Commissioner is affirmed and adopted as the Finding and Award of the Compensation Review Division.
OPINION
JOHN ARCUDI, CHAIRMAN
Claimant suffered a compensable back injury August 6, 1980, accepted as such by the respondent in an agreement approved by the Second District September 30, 1980. Thereafter, she was paid temporary total disability benefits until November 5, 1981. On October 28, 1981, pursuant to Sec. 31-296 the respondent employer filed a Form 36, a notice to terminate benefits, because “claimant had refused to undergo lumbar myelography. . .” Claimant’s treating physicians were Dr. Edward Collins, a Willimantic orthopedist and Dr. Leo Goldschlager, a Storrs chiropractor. The authorization to be treated by the chiropractor was sanctioned by Dr. Collins, the original treater, with the stipulation that claimant return to him following the chiropractic therapy. Dr. Goldschlager treated claimant for twenty-seven visits from July 25, 1981 to October 13, 1981.
She did not see Dr. Collins after that but removed to Enid, Oklahoma where she established residence. In Enid she was treated by an orthopedist, Dr. Robert Chouteau and a chiropractor, Dr. Thomas Smith. Dr. Chouteau’s report in evidence notes a finding of spasm in the lumbar area but no neurological deficit. Dr. Chouteau, however, did find claimant at least temporarily disabled. In fact, claimant had undergone a lumbar myelogram in August of 1981 while still in Connecticut and before the October 28 filing of the Form 36 by the Respondent Appellant. The myelogram failed to reveal any objective evidence of lumbar pathology.
The Commissioner ruled that Respondent’s filing of the notice to discontinue benefits had no effect under Sec. 31-296 since the reason given in the notice, i.e. claimant’s failure to have a myelogram, was incorrect. Therefore, the Commissioner did not permit the appellant to discontinue benefits and instead, continued temporary total disability benefits until January 15, 1982. The Appellant State of Connecticut has appealed arguing that: (1) the Commissioner had no power to continue benefits after claimant had refused authorized medical treatment and removed herself from the state and (2) the Commissioner did not have power to authorize medical treatment outside the State of Connecticut.
The argument on the first issue loses much of its force since claimant did undergo the myelogram in question. The only “refused” medical treatment left in the case would then be her failure to see the orthopedist, Dr. Collins, after the completion of her chiropractic treatments. But that failure was not so much a refusal as it was a change of domicile. This residential change is also involved in the second issue argued by the Appellant.
Can state action in any way be permitted to limit the mobility of United States residents to remove themselves from state to state and establish a new domiciliary abode? We doubt the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution would allow it. However, even if the ruling were’ to be that out of state doctors may not be authorized, that would not make the evidence contained in their reports inadmissible. The Commissioner did admit their reports and found claimant eligible on the basis of that evidence in part. We may disagree with his factual conclusions, but they were his to make as the trier of fact, Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division, 177 Conn. 107 (1979).
Whether or not the services of Dr. Chouteau and Dr. Smith, the Oklahoma physicians, should be reimbursed is not really before us since the Commissioner’s February 4, 1982 decision is silent as to whether they were authorized treaters and whether their services should be paid. The decision only contains an award of benefits to the claimant.
The decision awarding benefits to the claimant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
Commissioners A. Paul Berte and Frank Verrilli concur in this opinion.