Opinion
CASE NO. 3211 CRB-4-95-11
JANUARY 16, 1997
The claimant was represented by David Feliu, Esq.
The respondents were represented by David A. Kelly, Esq., Montstream May.
This Petition for Review from the November 15, 1995 Order for Commissioner's Examination of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District was heard April 19, 1996 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners George A. Waldron and Robin L. Wilson.
OPINION
The respondents have petitioned for review from the November 15, 1995 Order for Commissioner's Examination of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District. There, the commissioner directed Dr. Camarda to examine the claimant pursuant to § 31-294f C.G.S at the respondent insurer's expense. The respondents have appealed that order.
In their brief, the respondents report that the claimant unsuccessfully requested another doctor at an August 25, 1995 informal hearing. Another informal hearing was held on November 13, 1995, at which the claimant again asserted that he needed a new doctor in order to obtain more medical evidence in support of his claim. The trial commissioner agreed to order a medical exam, to which the respondents objected on the grounds that the treating physician had already released the claimant for regular duty, and that there was no medical issue in dispute. They further argue that it was improper for the commissioner to enter an order without a formal hearing. The claimant contends in his brief that this board should not consider this appeal because there is no record to review. In defense of his request for a medical examination, he states that Dr. Lipow had released him to full duty work at the same time that he stated the claimant needed surgery, and that a further examination was needed to resolve this inconsistency.
Because there was no formal hearing in this case, there are neither exhibits nor a transcript for this board to review on appeal. Section 31-301(b) requires this board to review a trial commissioner's decision on the record of the proceedings below. We cannot fulfill that function here, and are thus powerless to determine the correctness of the § 31-294f order. See Anguish v. TLM. Inc., 14 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 195, 196-97, 2286 CRB-7-95-1 (July 13, 1995); Laime v. American Standard, 9 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 62, 63, 914 CRD-2-89-9 (Feb. 6, 1991). Once the respondents objected to the commissioner's examination, they should have requested a formal hearing so that some sort of a record could be created. Instead, all we have to go on here is an order, written in the form of a letter to Dr. Camarda, that contains no findings or reasoning for the order.
Therefore, the trial commissioner's decision is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Fourth District for a formal hearing concerning the need for a commissioner's examination.
Commissioners George A. Waldron and Robin L. Wilson concur.