Opinion
CASE NO. 612 CRD-6-87
JUNE 9, 1989
The claimant appeared pro se.
The respondent-employer was represented by one of its owners, Mrs. Jacqueline Napier. The Second Injury Fund was represented by Robert Festa, Esq. and Brewster Blackall, Esq. None of the parties appeared at oral argument.
This Petition for Review from the July 7, 1987 Finding and Award of the Commissioner At Large acting For the Sixth District was heard October 28, 1988 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Robin Waller and Darius Spain.
OPINION
Appellant here is the respondent-employer appearing pro se. It seeks review of the July 7, 1987 Finding and Award granting benefits under Chapter 568 for a foot injury April 29, 1986. Respondent contends the claimant was not an employee on that date and seeks to Re-Open and to Submit Additional Evidence.
Our review indicates the conclusions drawn by the trial Commissioner were largely the result of determining the weight and credibility of the evidence presented to him. We cannot disturb those factual findings unless found without evidence or predicated on impermissible or unreasonable factual inferences, or contrary to law. Fair v. Peoples's Savings Bank, 207 Conn. 535, 539 (1988). We find neither eventuality here.
The Appellant alleges that it was denied an opportunity to present evidence denying claimant's employee status because the employer received no notice of the May 13, 1987 hearing. The record shows that a hearing notice was sent via certified return receipt mail and that the return receipt card was signed by one Al Napier March 6, 1987. Further the July 7, 1987 Finding and Award indicates that Mrs. Jacqueline Napier, a co-owner, did appear before the trial Commissioner and testified. We therefore fail to see any prejudice to respondent's rights. As Motions to Re-Open and Submit Additional Evidence are controlled by Sec. 31-315 C.G.S., rulings on such Motions are within the trial Commissioner's discretion. We cannot overrule him unless his decision constituted an abuse of discretion. Wysocki v. Bradley Hubbard Co., 113 Conn. 170 (1931). We do not so find.
Sec. 31-315 provides: 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.
We affirm the trial Commissioner's July 7, 1987 decision and dismiss the Appeal.
Commissioners Robin Waller and Darius Spain concur.