Pearce v. New Haven
Decision Date | 29 April 2003 |
Docket Number | (AC 22958). |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | FRANCIS PEARCE v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN. |
Foti, Flynn and Healey, Js.
Thomas E. Farver, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Michael McAuliffe, for the appellee (defendant).
The plaintiff, Francis Pearce, appeals from the decision of the workers' compensation review board (board) affirming the determination by the workers' compensation commissioner (commissioner) that the plaintiff's claim for benefits was untimely. We affirm the board's decision.
The following facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff, after passing a preemployment physical in 1978, began working for the New Haven fire department. In August, 1988, the plaintiff began seeing Dr. Mark Kasper, his family physician. On August 16, 1988, the plaintiff's blood pressure was taken three times, with readings of 180 over 94, 178 over 104 and 156 over 94, respectively. Kasper informed the plaintiff that he had an elevated reading. During 1988, Kasper also asked the plaintiff to report to him on a monthly basis in order to have his blood pressure checked.
On June 1, July 12 and November 21, 1989, and January 11, June 12 and August 9, 1990, the plaintiff's blood pressure continued to be elevated with readings ranging from 140 over 98 to 170 over 110. Kasper advised the plaintiff to change his diet and to lose weight. A blood pressure monitor was also prescribed to assist the plaintiff with the daily monitoring of his blood pressure, and Kasper requested that the plaintiff keep a diary of his blood pressure readings.
The plaintiff saw Kasper on a regular basis between 1988 and 1990, and Kasper discussed with the plaintiff his high blood pressure on nearly every visit. Kasper thought that the plaintiff's high blood pressure results might be due to "white coat hypertension"1 because the results were higher when taken at the physician's office.2 The plaintiff did not see Kasper between 1990 and 1998, but, while at the Hospital of Saint Raphael in 1993, the plaintiff's blood pressure was recorded at 172 over 100. Kasper wrote a letter to the plaintiff on October 17, 1995, requesting that he come to Kasper's office because Kasper was concerned about the plaintiff's blood pressure and cholesterol. Additionally, James Dougherty, a cardiologist, after reviewing the plaintiff's medical chart, concluded that "there is extensive data in the record dating back to 1988, 1989 and 1990 where multiple blood pressure readings were obtained which clearly demonstrate modest, sustained essential hypertension." The plaintiff, however, was not diagnosed with hypertension until October 15, 1998.
On November 13, 1998, the plaintiff filed a form 30C,3 claiming a date of injury of October 15, 1998, resulting from his diagnosis of hypertension and being prescribed medication for that condition. The plaintiff claimed entitlement to workers' compensation benefits pursuant to General Statutes § 7-433c,4 commonly referred to as the Heart and Hypertension Act. After formal hearings were held, the commissioner determined that the plaintiff's claim for benefits was untimely, and he dismissed the claim.
Following the denial of his motion to "correct the finding of dismissal," the plaintiff appealed to the board, which affirmed the determination of the commissioner that the plaintiff's claim was untimely. This appeal followed.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Six v. Thomas O'Connor & Co., 235 Conn. 790, 797, 669 A.2d 1214 (1996). General Statutes (Rev. to 1997) § 31-301 provides in relevant part: "(a) At any time within ten days after . . . a decision of the commissioner . . . either party may appeal . . . to the [board] . . . .
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Fair v. People's Savings Bank, 207 Conn. 535, 538-39, 542 A.2d 1118 (1988).
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 540.
The plaintiff claims that the commissioner improperly concluded that his claim for benefits was untimely because he was not diagnosed with, placed on medication for, or disabled by hypertension until October 15, 1998. The plaintiff argues that the commissioner should have corrected his findings to include the fact that the defendant was not placed on high blood pressure medication until October 15, 1998. This fact, the plaintiff argues, would establish that he was not disabled until that date.
The defendant argues that the plaintiff suffered from hypertension in the years 1988, 1989 and 1990, and that, as the commissioner concluded, the plaintiff should have filed a notice of claim at that time. The plaintiff acknowledges that he had high blood pressure readings between 1988 and 1990; his dispute, however, appears to be with the manner in which the commissioner interpreted § 7-433c to require a firefighter that is told he or she has high blood pressure readings to file a claim despite not being placed on medication, losing time from work or being disabled. We are persuaded that, in reviewing the relevant legal principles in conjunction with the facts found by the commissioner, the board correctly upheld her decision that the plaintiff's claim for benefits was untimely, regardless of the additional facts that the plaintiff sought to have added to the commissioner's findings.
A review of the relevant statutory provisions is necessary to resolve the plaintiff's claim properly. Zaleta v. Fairfield, 38 Conn. App. 1, 7, 658 A.2d 166, cert. denied, 234 Conn. 917, 661 A.2d 98 (1995).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Salmeri v. Dept. of Public Safety, 70 Conn. App. 321, 337, 798 A.2d 481, cert. denied, 261 Conn. 919, 806 A.2d 1055 (2002). "In order to collect the benefits provided by § 7-433c, a claimant need show only that he or she is a uniformed member of a paid fire department or a regular member of a paid police department, whose preemployment physical examination revealed no evidence of hypertension or heart disease, who now suffers a condition or an impairment of health caused by hypertension or heart disease that has resulted in death or disability, and has suffered a resultant economic loss." Zaleta v. Fairfield, supra, 38 Conn. App. 5. "[O]nce the conditions of § 7-433c are met, benefits must be paid by the municipality in accordance with the Workers' Compensation Act." Salmeri v. Dept. of Public Safety, supra, 338-39. Nevertheless, "[our Supreme Court] has stated on many occasions that [t]he...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Staurovsky v. City of Milford Police Dep't, 37670.
...the claimant learned of his elevated blood pressure readings, rather than when he was diagnosed with hypertension. Pearce v. New Haven, 76 Conn.App. 441, 449–50, 819 A.2d 878, cert. denied, 264 Conn. 913, 826 A.2d 1155 (2003). In Arborio, this court adhered to that holding while concluding ......
-
Ciarlelli v. Hamden
...was defined by the need for medical care, including prescription medication. The board noted, however, that, in Pearce v. New Haven, 76 Conn.App. 441, 450, 819 A.2d 878, cert. denied, 264 Conn. 913, 826 A.2d 1155 2003), the Appellate Court had endorsed an approach that requires a claimant ......
-
Brocuglio v. Thompsonville Fire Dist. #2
...under the [a]ct." (Citations omitted; footnotes added and footnotes omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Pearce v. New Haven , 76 Conn. App. 441, 446–49, 819 A.2d 878 (overruled in part on other grounds by Ciarlelli v. Hamden , 299 Conn. 265, 296, 8 A.3d 1093 [2010] ), cert. denied, ......
-
Staurovsky v. City of Milford Police Dep't, AC 37670
...the claimant learned of his elevated blood pressure readings, rather than when he was diagnosed with hypertension. Pearce v. New Haven, 76 Conn. App. 441, 449-50, 819 A.2d 878, cert. denied, 264 Conn. 913, 826 A.2d 1155 (2003). In Arborio, this court adhered to that holding while concluding......