Winzler v. United Aircraft Corp..

• Decision Date: 03 May 1945
• Citation: 42 A.2d 655,132 Conn. 118
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: WINZLER v. UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION et al.

132 Conn. 118

42 A.2d 655

WINZLER

v.UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 3, 1945.

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Alcorn, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Susanna Winzler, claimant, opposed by United Aircraft Corporation, employer, and another. From a judgment dismissing appeal and affirming award of compensation commissioner for the first district in favor of defendant, the claimant appeals.

No error.

George Miske, of Hartford (George C. Lessner, of Manchester, on the brief), for appellant (plaintiff).

Edward S. Pomeranz, of Hartford, for appellees (defendant).

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Upon this appeal from the trial court's judgment confirming the commission's finding and award denying workmen's compensation to the plaintiff, the facts found may be thus summarized: The plaintiff's claim was for a sore and lame condition of her right shoulder alleged to be due to the lifting of magnetos during the course of her employment. On December 31, 1943, she went to the defendant employer's first-aid hospital in connection with a finger injury and at that time reported this shoulder difficulty. She was examined for the shoulder condition and gave no history of injury, but maintained that her shoulder was sore and lame from the cause stated above. She was advised that her condition was not compensable and to get her own doctor, which she did. He, having diagnosed the trouble to be periarticular adhesions, operated to relieve this condition, and the plaintiff lost nine or ten weeks from work in consequence. For this period she collected the benefits provided by her group insurance policy, which covered disability not compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Gen.St.1930, § 5223 et seq., as amended. The commissioner concluded that the plaintiff did not suffer an accidental injury which could be definitely located as to the time when and the place where it occurred, that she had not suffered an occupational disease and that her condition was not due to her work or any accidental injury. It is only necessary to consider the last conclusion.

Under our procedure, in determining this issue we are entitled to assume that all the evidence upon the question was before the trial court and is contained in the record now before us.

Furlani v. Avery, 112 Conn. 333, 336, 152 A. 158; Kenyon v. Swift Service Corporation, 121 Conn. 274, 278, 184 A. 643. This shows that the material evidence is restricted...