Opinion
CASE NO. 784 CRD-4-88-10
FEBRUARY 21, 1990
The claimant was represented by Gerald Gaynor, Esq., and Geraldine Ficarra, Esq., Riccio Gaynor.
The respondents were represented by Serge Mihaly, Esq., Bruce Levin, Esq.
This Petition for Review from the October 18, 1988 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner At Large acting for the Fourth District was heard October 27, 1989 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Robin Waller and Andrew P. Denuzze.
OPINION
Claimant has been paid total incapacity benefits since March 28, 1960 when he sustained a compensable injury to his spinal cord rendering him a paraplegic. He was hospitalized in 1977 for depression and has received continuing psychiatric treatment. He now requests that respondent purchase a specially-equipped van to allow him some freedom and mobility.
His request was denied in an October 18, 1988 Finding and Dismissal. The trial commissioner found claimant had failed to sustain his burden of proof as to the causal connection between the need for the van, claimant's psychiatric problems and his compensable injury.
As part of his appeal, claimant Filed a Motion to Correct and a Motion to Submit Additional Evidence. Both motions have been denied by the trial commissioner.
See Spataro v. Mattioli Construction, 784 CRD-4-88-10 (decided January 5, 1989).
Claimant argues that the trial commissioner was overly concerned with a rigid adherence to the rules of evidence and this concern thwarted the claimant's ability to show causal connection between the compensable injury and his depression. However, no specific assignments of alleged error in the evidential rulings of the trial commissioner have been Provided. Allegations of error presented are nothing more than a wholesale attack on the proceedings. We will not consider such general and blanket objections on review. Draus v. International Silver Co., 105 Conn. 415 (1926). See also, Mack v. Blake Drug Co., 152 Conn. 523 (1965).
For the record we note that the claimant did not file any Reasons of Appeal.
With respect to the second issue, the denial of the Motion to Submit Additional Evidence, the standard of review has been addressed both in our Administrative Regulation and by case law. See Sec. Adm. Reg. 31-301-9. See also, Tanner v. Walgren Tree Experts, 748 CRD-8-88-7, (March 27, 1989) Lindhorn v. Moscowitz, 6 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 7, 527 CRD-7-86, (1988), Murdock v. Squires, 6 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 64, 550 CRD-7-87 (1988); Brusca v. Color Tech, Inc., 3 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 81, 50 CRD-7-81 (1986); Chapo v. Town of Westport, 3 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 14.
As we noted in Brusca, supra at 82, "[t]he commissioner is accorded considerable latitude in deciding Motions to Submit Additional Evidence." Further Administrative Regulation Sec. 31-301-9 states additional evidence must be material and there must be good reasons for the failure to provide such evidence in the proceedings before the trial commissioner. In the instant case, the claimant has not shown such materiality nor shown good reasons for the failure to present that evidence in the two hearings before the trial commissioner.
Sec. 31-301-9. Additional Evidence. If any party to an appeal shall allege that additional evidence or testimony is material and that there were good reasons for failure to present it in the proceedings before the commissioner he shall by written motion request an opportunity to present such evidence or testimony to the compensation review division, indicating in such motion the nature of such evidence or testimony, the basis of the claim of materiality, and the reasons why it was not presented in the proceedings before the commissioner. The compensation review division may act on such motion with or without a hearing, and if justice so requires may order a certified copy of the evidence for the use of the employer, the employee or both, and such certified copy shall be made a part of the record on such appeal.
January 19 and March 15, 1988.
We, therefore, affirm the Finding and Dismissal of the trial commissioner and dismiss the appeal.
Commissioners Robin Waller and Andrew P. Denuzze concur.