Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

JOEL HEBERT, CLAIMANT-APPELLEE v. RWA ROOFING SHEET METAL, EMPLOYERRESPONDENT-APPELLEE, NO RECORD OF INSURANCE and HANSEN BROTHERS GENERALCONTRACTORS, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, NO RECORD OF INSURANCEand SECOND INJURY FUND, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

OPINION

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN.

The appellant-respondent Hansen Brothers General Contractors petitioned for review in a timely manner from the May 24, 1993 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Second District. Although formal hearings were held in this case, the tapes and stenographic notes of those hearings have been lost. Thus, the appellant can not provide a transcript from which we can review the commissioner's finding that the appellant was a principal employer pursuant to General Statutes § 31-291.

The appellant also filed timely petitions for review from subsequent findings and awards dated November 4, 1993 and August 5, 1994, both of which addressed the issue of payment pursuant to the first finding and award. All three appeals have been consolidated for the purpose of this action.

This Board is powerless to perform any meaningful review under General Statutes § 31-301 without a record or transcript of evidence of the proceedings. Nevers v. Environmental Waste Removal, 10 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 96, 1166 CRD-5-91-1 (1992). See also Warchola v. U.S. Gypsum Specialists, 11 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 108, 1444 CRB-1-92-6 (1993); Vasseur v. Konica Business Machines, 10 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 228, 1467 CRB-1-92-7 (1993). Thus, we must sustain the appellant's appeal and remand this matter for further proceedings as to the issue of whether the appellant is a principal employer.

The question of whether the Second Injury Fund should be paying benefits pursuant to General Statutes § 31-301(f) or § 31-355 has also been raised. Despite the fact that an appeal has been taken by the alleged principal employer, the commissioner's finding of compensability and his award against the uninsured respondent employer, RWA Roofing Sheet Metal, has not been challenged on appeal and remains in effect. As such, the Second Injury Fund should continue paying benefits to the claimant pursuant to C.G.S. § 31-355.

We remand this matter to the Second District for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Commissioners George A. Waldron and Michael S. Miles concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HEBERT v. RWA ROOFING SHEET METAL
(Dec 6, 1994)