Opinion
CASE NO. 950 CRD-2-89-11
APRIL 24, 1991
The claimant was represented by Carl Anderson, Esq. and Dennis A. Ferdon, Esq.
The respondents were represented by Jason Dodge, Esq. of Pomeranz, Drayton Stabnick.
This Petition for Review from the November 21, 1989 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Second District was heard October 26, 1990 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Andrew Denuzze and Michael S. Sherman.
OPINION
Claimant, a Connecticut resident, sustained a compensable injury August 16, 1983. At the time he was driving the respondent employer's truck in Fall River, Massachusetts. He had been hired in Connecticut in May, 1977 and worked out of the employer's New London terminal for six years. In 1982 the employer closed its New London terminal and moved those operations to Providence, Rhode Island where claimant reported to work. The employer continued to maintain a Waterbury terminal in Connecticut, but this employee did not work out of Waterbury. Claimant was treated by Connecticut physicians for his August, 1983 injury.
The Second District found that "claimant's contract of hire was in Connecticut and that significant enough contacts with the state existed to confer Connecticut jurisdiction . . . . See Paragraph #11. The trial commissioner also held Rhode Island and Connecticut have concurrent jurisdiction and ordered respondents to pay benefits pursuant to the Connecticut Workers' Compensation Act. He allowed a credit for the Rhode Island benefits already paid.
Respondents argue that the Connecticut commissioner had no jurisdiction over the claim. The issue on appeal therefore presents a conflict of laws problem.
Cleveland v. U.S. Printing Ink, Inc., 218 Conn. 181 (1991) recently addressed this issue. In Cleveland, a truck driver resident of New Jersey suffered a work-related injury in South Windsor, CT. Our Supreme Court decided the issue presented was a conflicts of law problem and then held that relief under Connecticut's Act applied "`if the place of injury, or the place of hiring, or the place of employment relation is within the state.'" (Emphasis added) Id. at 192, quoting 4 A. Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, Sec. 87.00 p. 16-67 (footnote omitted).
In the present case the commissioner concluded this state was the "place of hiring." That satisfied the Cleveland criterion. But the respondents contend there was a new hiring when the terminal was shifted to Providence. The place of the making of the employment contract and the circumstances surrounding its continuance are basically factual matters. We as an appellate tribunal are bound to accept the trier's conclusions on the facts, Fair v. People's Saving Bank, 207 Conn. 535 (1988).
We therefore dismiss the appeal and affirm the Second District.
Commissioners Andrew Denuzze and Michael S. Sherman concur.