X hits on this document

PDF document

The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the - page 10 / 11





10 / 11

§ 31-307 benefits. Although she has proven that she has the ability to perform in a light duty capacity only, she has not shown that she has made adequate attempts to secure gainful employment or that she truly is unem- ployable.

The plaintiff also argues that she is suffering from a mental illness attributable to her accepted injury and, therefore, should be eligible for § 31-307 benefits. We disagree. Section 31-307 (c) (6) provides that ‘‘any injury resulting in incurable imbecility or mental illness’’ shall be considered as causing total incapacity. We agree with the defendants that although Cudrin stated that the plaintiff’s depressive disorder ‘‘may be secondary to her medical condition,’’ the plaintiff has not met her burden of proving that the mental illness is causally related to her work-related injury or that any alleged mental illness is incurable.

We conclude that sufficient evidence existed to sup- port the commissioner’s determination that the plaintiff had not sustained her burden of proof in regard to her claim of total disability. Therefore, the board properly affirmed the findings of the commissioner on this claim.

The decision of the workers’ compensation review board is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

1 The employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier is also a defen- dant in this action.

2 General Statutes § 52-178a provides: ‘‘In any action to recover damages for personal injuries, the court or judge may order the plaintiff to submit to a physical examination by one or more physicians or surgeons. No party may be compelled to undergo a physical examination by any physician to whom he objects in writing submitted to the court or judge.’’

3 General Statutes § 20-1 defines ‘‘healing arts’’ as ‘‘the practice of medi- cine, chiropractic, podiatry, natureopathy and, except as used in chapters 384a and 388, and sections 19a-16a to 19a-16c, inclusive, the practice of optometry.’’

4 General Statutes § 31-294f (a) provides that ‘‘[a]n injured employee shall submit himself to examination by a reputable practicing physician or sur- geon, at any time while claiming or receiving compensation, upon the reason- able request of the employer or at the direction of the commissioner. The examination shall be performed to determine the nature of the injury and the incapacity resulting from the injury. The physician or surgeon shall be selected by the employer from an approved list of physicians and surgeons prepared by the chairman of the Workers’ Compensation Commission and shall be paid by the employer. At any examination requested by the employer or directed by the commissioner under this section, the injured employee shall be allowed to have in attendance any reputable practicing physician or surgeon that the employee obtains and pays for himself. The employee shall submit to all other physical examinations as required by this chapter. The refusal of an injured employee to submit himself to a reasonable exami- nation under this section shall suspend his right to compensation during such refusal.’’

5 General Statutes § 31-275 (17) provides that the definition of a physician ‘‘includes any person licensed and authorized to practice a healing art, as defined in section 20-1, and licensed under the provisions of chapters 370, 372 and 373 to practice in this state.’’

6 The plaintiff argues that allowing such examinations will allow the defen- dants to send the plaintiff to unqualified individuals. We disagree. In order to allow an expert opinion into evidence, the commissioner must determine that the witness is qualified to give such an opinion and that there is a factual basis for the opinion. See State v. Asherman, 193 Conn. 695, 716, 478 A.2d 227 (1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1050, 105 S. Ct. 1749, 84 L. Ed.

Document info
Document views35
Page views35
Page last viewedMon Jan 16 22:31:52 UTC 2017