OPINION

JOHN ARCUDI, CHAIRMAN.

Respondents appeal the Third District ruling awarding claimant benefits for fifteen percent (15%) loss of use of the lumbar spine. They argue the evidence was not legally sufficient to support the award and further that the commissioner below failed to permit cross-examination or deposition of the physicians on whose reports the trier relied. They also contend the commissioner should have permitted a medical examination of the claimant pursuant to Sec. 31-305 C.G.S.

We disagree and affirm the commissioner's decision. His finding that claimant suffered a fifteen (15%) permanent loss of use of the back was based on Dr. Alan Weisel's February 9, 1990 report; that report was contained in a letter of the same date addressed to the respondent insurer. (Claimant's Exhibit B). The trier's reliance on this report depended on the weight and credibility of evidence before him. Factual findings will not be disturbed when based upon the weight and credibility to be accorded such evidence. Rivera v. Guida's Dairy, 167 Conn. 524 (1975).

The respondent's claim that they were denied an opportunity to depose or cross-examine Dr. Weisel, or any other physician is ludicrous. Claimant was injured in 1982. An informal hearing was noticed and scheduled for June 20, 1990. At that hearing the parties were unable to resolve their dispute as to the amount of specific benefits, and a formal hearing was then held October 31, 1990. (See October 31, 1990 Formal Hearing Transcript at 36-38) The October 31, 1990 Formal Hearing Notice stated the issue to be resolved as "Extent of permanent partial disability." Had respondents wished to challenge the February 9, 1990 rating by Dr. Weisel, a board certified orthopedic surgeon of Stamford, then they had ample opportunity between February and October 31 to request a deposition. Moreover, if they wished to cross-examine the doctor, they could have assured his presence at the October 31 hearing by subpoenaing him. See Diogostine v. Somers Thin Strip, 3 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 139, 282 CRD-5-83 (1987). The legal maxim, "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium," is certainly applicable here, cf. Hayden v. Wallace Sons Mfg. Co., 100 Conn. 180, 187 (1923) citing Burritt v. Belfy, 47 Conn. 323, 329 (1879). The respondents had every opportunity to present their case, but they chose not to call any witnesses at that formal hearing.

Thirdly, on the issue of respondents' right to secure an independent medical examination. Sec. 31-305 C.G.S. provides in part "At any time while claiming or receiving compensation, upon the reasonable request of the employer or at the direction of the commissioner, an injured employee shall submit himself to examination by a reputable practicing physician or surgeon . . . ."

The determination of whether a Respondent's request for examination is reasonable and should be compelled under Sec. 31-305 C.G.S. is a matter for the trial commissioner to decide. Applebee v. State of Connecticut, 8 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 142, 841 CRD-5-89-4 (1990). The commissioner had reports in the district file both from Dr. Weisel and another board certified orthopedist, Dr. Nicholas Polifroni of Norwalk. Dr. Polifroni had earlier given a rating of ten (10%) per cent which he changed to twenty (20%) per cent in a March 7, 1990 report. Dr. Weisel's report before February 9 had given (10%) per cent rating. As there were already at least four reports from two orthopedists available, the commissioner's denial of a further medical examination cannot be termed an abuse of discretion.

We therefore affirm the Third District and dismiss the appeal.

Pursuant to Sec. 31-301c(b) we grant interest at the rate permitted by statute on any amount remaining unpaid during the pendency of the appeal.

Commissioners Frank Verrilli and Donald Doyle concur.