Weiss v. Chesebrough-Ponds USA Co., (AC 17684)
Citation | 51 Conn. App. 106,719 A.2d 1225 |
Decision Date | 24 November 1998 |
Docket Number | (AC 17684) |
Court | Appellate Court of Connecticut |
Parties | LISABETH WEISS v. CHESEBROUGH-PONDS USA COMPANY ET AL. |
Lucas D. Strunk filed a brief for the appellants (defendants).
Carolyn A. Comerford filed a brief for the appellee (plaintiff).
The defendant employer, Chesebrough-Ponds USA Company (Chesebrough), and its defendant workers' compensation insurance carrier, Sedgwick James of Connecticut, appeal from the decision of the workers' compensation review board (board) affirming the commissioner's finding and award in favor of the plaintiff, Lisabeth Weiss. On appeal, the defendants claim that the board improperly affirmed the decision of the commissioner in that the commissioner (1) failed to find the material and necessary facts to support a conclusion of compensability and (2) made an impermissible inference such as to allow a conclusion of compensability to stand. We affirm the board's decision.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to the resolution of this appeal. The plaintiff was employed at Chesebrough from November, 1985, until August, 1986,1 and then again from April, 1988, until September, 1993. During the plaintiffs first period of employment, she worked as a microfilm operator and an order processor.2 During her second period of employment, she was an order processor before becoming a customer service representative3 in April, 1989.
While working as a customer service representative, the plaintiff began experiencing pain in both of her hands. She thereafter filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, alleging that the repetitive use of keyboards required by her various positions at Chesebrough had caused her to develop bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Chesebrough denied that claim and maintained that her injury did not arise out of her employment. On July 24, 1996, the commissioner awarded workers' compensation benefits to the plaintiff and, thereafter, the defendants appealed to the board. On September 23, 1997, the board affirmed the commissioner's decision that the plaintiffs injuries were related to her employment duties at Chesebrough. This appeal followed. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Fimiani v. Star Gallo Distributors, Inc., 48 Conn. App. 474, 477-78, 710 A.2d 1374, cert. granted on other grounds, 245 Conn. 912, 718 A.2d 17 (1998).
(Emphasis in original; internal quotations marks omitted.) Six v. Thomas O'Connor & Co., 235 Conn. 790, 797-98, 669 A.2d 1214 (1996).
Chesebrough first claims that the commissioner failed to find the material and necessary facts to support a conclusion of compensability, specifically, the extent of the plaintiff's usage of the keyboard. In the present case, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence in the record4 to demonstrate that the commissioner did find the material and necessary facts necessary to support a conclusion of compensability.
The commissioner is the trier of fact, and "[t]he conclusions drawn by him from the facts found must stand unless they result from an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally or unreasonably drawn from them." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 798-99, quoting Fair v. People's Savings Bank, 207 Conn. 535, 539, 542 A.2d 1118 (1988). While there was conflicting testimony as to how much work the plaintiff actually performed on a keyboard, it is clearly within the commissioner's discretion to choose between conflicting testimony.5 (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Six v. Thomas O'Connor & Co., supra, 799. A review of the record, in particular, the commissioner's finding and award dated July 24, 1996, reveals that the commissioner specifically found that the plaintiffs position as an order processor involved extensive keyboard usage and that her work as a customer service representative could involve computer keyboard usage.
"Because we are required to afford great deference to the commissioner's conclusion ... we must interpret [the commissioner's finding] with the goal of sustaining that conclusion in light of all of the other supporting evidence." Id., 801. The commissioner's conclusion is sustainable by the underlying facts in this case, and we refuse to disturb his conclusion.
Chesebrough next claims that the commissioner made an impermissible inference to allow a conclusion of compensability to stand, specifically pertaining to the history provided by the plaintiff to her treating physician, Leon Goldstein. We disagree.
"The [commissioner] alone is charged with the duty of initially selecting the inference which seems most reasonable and his choice, if otherwise sustainable, may not be disturbed by a reviewing court." (Internal quotation marks...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kinsey v. Pac
...that conclusion in light of all of the other supporting evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Weiss v. Chesebrough–Ponds USA Co., 51 Conn.App. 106, 110, 719 A.2d 1225 (1998). The commissioner's conclusion is sustainable by the underlying facts in this case, and we decline to distur......
-
Paternostro v. Arborio Corp.
...that conclusion in light of all of the other supporting evidence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Weiss v. Chesebrough-Ponds USA Co., 51 Conn. App. 106, 110, 719 A.2d 1225 (1998). "Once the commissioner makes a factual finding, [we are] bound by that finding if there is evidence in the......
-
Ricigliano v. JJ Ryan Corp., (AC 18357)
...v. Holgrath Corp., 49 Conn. App. 339, 353, 715 A.2d 765 (1998)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Weiss v. Chesebrough-Ponds USA Co., 51 Conn. App. 106, 110-11, 719 A.2d 1225 (1998). Although both physicians reached the same conclusion that the plaintiff suffered a hearing loss sufficien......
-
Kinsey v. Pac
...that conclusion in light of all of the other supporting evidence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Weiss v. Chesebrough-Ponds USA Co., 51 Conn. App. 106, 110, 719 A.2d 1225 (1998). The commissioner's conclusion is sustainable by the underlying facts in this case, and we decline to distu......