Rios v. Polystar Packaging Inc.

CASE NO. 3002 CRB-7-95-2

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

OCTOBER 4, 1995

JORGE RIOS

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

POLYSTAR PACKAGING INC.

EMPLOYER

and

ITT HARTFORD

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was not represented at oral argument. He is being represented in this matter by Larry F. Ginsberg, Esq., 706 Bedford St., Stamford, CT 06901.

The respondents were not represented at oral argument, and are represented in this matter by Donald J. O’Brien, Esq., 55 Farmington Ave., Suite 500, Hartford, CT 06105. Notice should also be sent to ITT Hartford, P. O. Box 2923, Hartford, CT 06104-2923.

This Petition for Review from the February 8, 1995 Approval of the Respondents’ Form 36 by the Commissioner acting for the Seventh District was heard August 25, 1995 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Roberta S. Tracy and Michael S. Miles.

DISMISSAL

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has petitioned for review from the Seventh District Commissioner’s approval of a Form 36 filed by the respondents in this action. The Form 36 was filed on January 25, 1995, and was considered at an informal hearing on February 8, 1995. The trial commissioner determined that there were no medical reports to justify continued disability payments, and approved the Form 36 effective January 25, 1995. The claimant then filed a petition for review with this board, and moved to submit additional evidence from the claimant’s treating physician.

We recently stated in Stryczek v. State of Connecticut/Mansfield Training School, 1765 CRB-2-93-6 (decided May 4, 1995), that a claimant who objects to a Form 36 under § 31-296 C.G.S. is entitled to an emergency informal hearing on the matter. The commissioner should render his decision either at the hearing or shortly afterward. This procedure is necessary to ensure that claimants stop receiving total disability benefits as soon as possible after their disabilities cease. Id.

The emergency informal hearing is not the end of the issue, however. The claimant, if he or she so chooses, is entitled as a matter of due process to challenge the granting of the Form 36 in a subsequent formal hearing. Anguish v. TLM, Inc., 2286 CRB-7-95-1 (decided July 13, 1995). Indeed, an appeal to this board would be inappropriate before such a hearing was held, as there would be no record for us to review. Id. As we stated in Anguish, Stryczek does not eliminate the claimant’s right to a formal hearing; it merely recognizes the legislative intent to expedite the Form 36 process. A formal hearing is still available, and is a necessary precursor to an appeal.

The claimant’s appeal is dismissed, and the case is remanded to the Seventh District for a formal hearing on the Form 36. The Motion to Submit Additional Evidence is moot.

Commissioners Roberta S. Tracy and Michael S. Miles concur.