Page 32 - CLT062220

32 ¦ JUNE 22, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

Democratic Primary when she was not autho- ability to find employment, having both a Bache-
rized to do so. The commission found that lor of Arts degree and an MBA. He stated that he
Nadal owned two homes in Hartford during had preciously searched for work on the internet,
the relevant time period. The first was a home without success. He now no longer used a com-
on New Britain Avenue, owned by Nadal from puter and relied on his wife to turn on an iPad
at least January 2017 through May 10, 2019, for him. He testified that his medical condition
and registered until May 2018 as her bona fide did not permit him to drive more than a minimal
address. The second was a home on Freeman distance. It also did not permit him to work more
Street, purchased by her husband in May 2017 than one to three hours per day, after which time
and quitclaimed to both himself and Nadal in he was physically drained. The claimant’s voca-
June 2017. From then until May 2018, Nadal tional expert opined that claimant lacked a work
utilized both properties as residences. She es- capacity. Although he believed that claimant was
tablished the Freeman address as her bona capable of sedentary work, claimant’s inability to
fide address in May 2018, and rented out the work consistently, due to fatigue and tolerance
New Britain Avenue property in June 2018. issues, made it unlikely that he would be able
to obtain employment. The respondent’s voca-
She eventually sold that property in May 2019. tional expert opined that claimant could find any
When she registered to run as a candidate in the of several types of jobs that would allow him to
March 2018 Democratic primary, she properly work from home. The commissioner’s examiner
listed the New Britain Avenue property as her opined that claimant was “unable to perform any
residence address. Further, since both address- gainful work capacity.” The commissioner found
es were located in the same assembly district neither claimant nor his physician to be credible,
and utilized the same polling place, she could and concluded claimant had not met his burden
properly have listed either address as her bona of proof as to either medical or vocational dis-
fide address in March 2018. The commission ability. Claimant appealed the commissioner’s
dismissed the allegations against her. finding as to medical disability only. The review

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD board reversed and remanded for further pro-
ceedings, finding sufficient evidence of medical
disability to warrant further inquiry. The record
suggested that both the commissioner and the
commissioner’s examiner appeared to have con-
EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION • flated the concepts of medical and vocational dis-
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ability. Thus, despite the commissioner’s finding

Claimant’s Lack of Credibility With that claimant’s testimony as to vocational disabil-
ity was not credible, he should not have allowed
that to influence his assessment of claimant’s al-
Regard to Alleged Vocational Disability leged medical disability.
Not Determinative As to Claimed
Medical Disability
Hypertension Reasonably Deemed
Not Substantial Contributing Factor in
CASE: Goulbourne v. State Dep’t of Corr. Heart Block
COURT: Compensation Review Board
DOC. NO.: 6329 CRB-1-19-5
COURT OPINION BY: Morelli
DATE: June 10, 2020 • PAGES: 12 CASE: Krevis v. City of Bridgeport
COURT: Compensation Review Board
The Compensation Review Board remanded the DOC. NO.: 6321 CRB-4-19-4
trial commissioner’s finding and dismissal, find- COURT OPINION BY: Morelli
ing the claimant’s lack of credibility as to his DATE: May 28, 2020 • PAGES: 12
claim of vocational disability should not have in- The Compensation Review Board affirmed the
fluenced the commissioner’s assessment of claim- trial commissioner’s denial of a claim, finding
ant’s alleged medical disability. Claimant sought the trial commissioner reasonably concluded,
temporary total disability benefits. His physician based on the evidence presented, that claimant’s
opined that claimant suffered from a significant hypertension was not a substantial contributing
cardiac disability that severely limited his ability factor in his coronary disease. Claimant suffered
to manage the physical and emotional stressors from compensable hypertension. After retir-
of work. Claimant testified at hearing to his in- ing, he suffered a heart block that necessitated

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune