Workers’ Compensation Cases

The defendant employer and its workers' compensation insurer appealed to this court from the decision of the Compensation Review Board, which reversed in part the decision of the Workers' Compensation Com- missioner granting in part the plaintiff employee's motion to preclude the defendants from contesting the compensability of his injuries pursuant to statute (§ 31-294c (b)). The defendants did not file a form 43 to contest liability for the plaintiff's injuries within the twenty-eight day time period mandated by § 31-294c (b) but, rather, filed that form seventy-five days after they received the plaintiff's form 30C notice of claim. The defen- dants' form 43 stated that no medical records supporting the plaintiff's claim and no request for medical or indemnity benefits had been pre- sented to them. The commissioner determined that, because the defen- dants had not timely filed a form 43, they were precluded from contesting the compensability of the plaintiff's claim but that, under the limited exception to the preclusion provision of § 31-294c (b) articulated in Dubrosky v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp. (145 Conn. App. 261), the defendants could contest the extent of the plaintiff's injuries due to their inability to pay indemnity benefits or medical payments within the twenty-eight day time period mandated by § 31-294c (b). The board reversed the commissioner's decision in part, concluding that the com- missioner improperly applied the Dubrosky exception to the preclusion provision of § 31-294c (b) and directed that the defendants were to be precluded from presenting a defense to the plaintiff's claim for benefits. On appeal, the defendants claimed that it had been impossible to comply with the mandate of § 31-294c (b) that they commence payment to the plaintiff on or before the twenty-eighth day after receiving written notice of his claim because he failed to furnish them with medical bills or a separate request for payment within that twenty-eight day period. Held

Brian Bowling ("Employee") was employed as a laborer for Potter South East ("Employer"). During his employment with Employer, he was constantly exposed to loud noise from jackhammers, sledgehammers, power drivers and heavy equipment. Employee initially developed hearing loss in 2010 or 2011. Employer filed a motion for summary judgment raising the one-year statute of limitations. The motion was supported by the evaluating physician's C-32 report. The trial court granted Employer's motion and entered an order dismissing Employee's claim. Employee has appealed from that order. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

worker's compensation implied contract of employment right to control employee joint employment

Workers' compensation—Voluntary abandonment is an affirmative defense—If evidence of voluntary abandonment has been brought into issue, a hearing officer's failure to address the issue constitutes a mistake of law—The employer has the burden to raise and produce evidence of voluntary abandonment—Court of appeals' judgment denying writ of mandamus affirmed.