Roman v. Eyelets for Industry, Inc.

Decision Date07 April 1998
Docket NumberNo. 16964,16964
CourtConnecticut Court of Appeals
PartiesHerman ROMAN v. EYELETS FOR INDUSTRY, INC., et al.

Dominic C. Statile, Glastonbury, for appellants (defendants).

Deborah McGill-Membrino, Waterbury, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before SPEAR, DUPONT and SPALLONE, JJ.

SPALLONE, Judge.

The defendant employer, Eyelets for Industry, Inc., and its defendant workers' compensation insurer appeal from a decision rendered by the workers' compensation review board. The defendants claim that the board improperly affirmed the commissioner's decision to award the plaintiff, Herman Roman, compensation pursuant to General Statutes § 31-294c (c) (formerly § 31-294) and denied the defendants' June 20, 1995 motion to correct.

Our examination of the board's record discloses the following pertinent facts. The plaintiff filed a claim with the workers' compensation commission for alleged work-related injuries, to his lower leg and ankle that he incurred when he fell into a ditch on July 11, 1991. The defendants accepted liability for the injuries, entered into a voluntary agreement dated September 27, 1991, which was approved by the commissioner, and paid benefits associated with the injury.

In October, 1991, Anthony Sterling, an orthopedist, noted that the plaintiff was experiencing groin pain and, in May, 1992, noted that the plaintiff complained of pain in his left hip, groin and presacral area. Prior to undergoing ankle surgery, the plaintiff sought a second opinion from another physician, who indicated complaints of hip, groin and back pain in December, 1991. Phoenix Physical Therapy, where the plaintiff completed physical therapy for the ankle injury, also noted his complaints of pain in the lower back and left groin area. After the plaintiff concluded treatment for his ankle in October, 1992, he was given a 10 percent permanent partial disability rating by Sterling.

The plaintiff continued to have pain in his lower back and was seen by Jarob Mushaweh, a neurosurgeon. After magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a computerized axial tomography (CAT) scan and lumbar myelogram procedures, the plaintiff was diagnosed as suffering from disc herniations at L1-2, L3-4 and L4-5 of his spine. Sterling and Myron Shafer, another orthopedist who performed an independent medical examination of the plaintiff, both indicated that the plaintiff's groin pain resulted from his back injuries.

After a fully contested formal hearing before the workers' compensation commission, the commissioner found that the plaintiff's back injury was caused by and resulted from the accident that occurred on July 11, 1991. It was also determined that this accident precipitated the agreement that was voluntarily entered into by the plaintiff and the defendants on September 27, 1991. The commissioner ruled that the back injury was compensable. The defendants then appealed to the board, which, in its opinion dated February 14, 1997, affirmed the commissioner's decision. This appeal followed. We affirm the board's decision.

I

The defendants first claim that the plaintiff is barred from recovery because he failed to file a notice of claim, pursuant to § 31-294c (c), 1 that specifically referenced his back injuries. That argument is unavailing. Pursuant to § 31-294c (c), no notice of claim is required if the employee is furnished with medical care for the injury within the one year period from the date of the accident. There is ample evidence to indicate that the plaintiff's medical records detailed complaints of hip, groin and back pain prior to the expiration of one year from the date of the injury. The defendants paid several physicians for services and tests involved with the plaintiff's treatment for back pain both during and after the expiration of the one year period. In fact, Mushaweh treated the plaintiff exclusively for his back pain.

"The [medical care] exception is, no doubt, based upon the fact that if the employer furnishes medical treatment he must know that an injury has been suffered which at least may be the basis of such a claim." Gesmundo v. Bush, 133 Conn. 607, 612, 53 A.2d 392 (1947); Infante v. Mansfield Construction Co., 47 Conn.App. 530, 535, 706 A.2d 984 (1998); see also Landrette v. Bristol, 11 Conn. W...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Cooks v. O'Brien Properties, Inc.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • April 7, 1998
  • Roman v. Eyelets for Industry, Inc.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1998
    ...Glastonbury, in support of the petition. The defendants' petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn.App. 357, 709 A.2d 1147, is granted, limited to the following "Did the Appellate Court misapply General Statutes § 31-294c by affirming a compensation review boar......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT