Opinion
CASE NO. 728 CRD-2-88-4
JULY 25, 1989
The claimant Mr. Robert Chrystal appeared "pro se".
The Respondent-Employer Richardson Construction Company and Peerless Insurance Co. were represented by David Kelly, Esq. The Respondent-Employer Bird Builders and Hartford Insurance Group, were represented by Robert McGann, Esq., and Richard S. Bartlett, Esq., McGann, Bartlett Brown.
This Petition for Review from the April 13, 1988 Ruling on Claimant's Motion to Reopen Award by Stipulation, of the Eighth District Commissioner acting for the Second District was heard January 27, 1989 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Darius J. Spain and Andrew P. Denuzze.
OPINION
In the last proceedings below claimant appearing pro se sought to reopen a stipulated award approved by the Second District Commissioner September 28, 1987. As that award reflects the parties had agreed that claimant had sustained compensable back injuries December 26, 1985 and April 10, 1986. However they disagreed as to the extent of disability flowing from those work related episodes. Consequently it was stipulated that respondents pay $19,920.53 in full settlement of all remaining claims as of the September 28, 1987 date.
At that time claimant was represented by counsel and the full purport of the stipulation was explained to him by the Commissioner. Claimant understood that he had the right to a formal hearing on the disputed issues and that he did not have to accept the stipulated sum. However he chose to do so.
On October 4, 1987 claimant met with the Commissioner concerning a possible reduction in the $3,500. attorney's fee which had been set pursuant to Sec. 31-319, C.G.S. Subsequently claimant made a written request to reopen the whole matter. The Second District Commissioner recused himself and asked the Eighth District to act on claimant's request. On April 13, 1988 the Eighth District Commissioner issued his ruling denying the request to reopen but reduced the attorney's fee to $3,000.
No new evidence was presented in the Eighth District proceeding, and claimant conceded that there had been no fraud or misrepresentation when he signed the original stipulation. Neither did he demonstrate any other grounds cognizable under Sec. 31-315, C.G.S. to constitute a basis for such reopening.
Sec. 31-315. Modification of award or voluntary agreement. Any award of, or voluntary agreement concerning, compensation made under the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to modification, upon the request of either party and in accordance with the procedure for original determinations, whenever it appears to the compensation commissioner, after notice and hearing thereon, that the incapacity of an injured employee has increased, decreased or ceased, or that the measure of dependence on account of which the compensation is paid has changed, or that changed conditions of fact have arisen which necessitate a change of such agreement or award in order properly to carry out the spirit of this chapter. The commissioner shall also have the same power to open and modify an award as any court of the state has to open and modify a judgment of such court. The compensation commissioner shall retain jurisdiction over claims for compensation, awards and voluntary agreements, for any proper action thereon, during the whole compensation period applicable to the injury in question.
Therefore we dismiss claimant's appeal and affirm the decision below.
Commissioners Darius J. Spain and Andrew P. Denuzze.