Massive Natural Gas Exolosion Kills 5 and Injures More in Middletown

In what will likely prove to be Connecticut's largest single worker's compensation incident in years, the Associated Press is reporting that at least 5 workers were killed today and 12 more were injured when a Kleen Energy plant they were constructing in Middletown, Connecticut erupted in a natural gas fueled fireball. The photos I have scene from the scene depict the building ---which was under consruction but reportedly 95% complete--- with both of its' sides blown out. Homes across the Connecticut River in Portland suffered cracks in their walls and buckled doors as testimony to the force of the explosion.

In a case such as this, I am certain the members of the Connecticut Worker's Compensation bar will rally together to aid in bringing justice to the families of those killed and care to those who have been injured. Our prayers go out to all involved.

CGS 31-312 Mileage Rate Falls as of January 2010

Effective January 1, 2010, the mileage reimbursement rate for Connecticut Worker's Compensation Claim related travel fell to 50 cents per mile regardless of the date of injury.

The notation on the Connecticut WCC website may be read by clicking here.

Expert's Testimony Leads to New trial in Connecticut Medical Malpractice Case.

The case of ERIK M. PIN ET AL. v. DAVID L. KRAMER ET AL.
(AC 29314 was officially released by the Connecticut Appellate Court on January 19th, 2010. In this medical malpractice case brought against a respected Fairfield County orthopedic surgeon, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant, David Kramer, MD. That is to say that the Plaintiff--the one who sued---lost their case and recovered no money for the doctor's alleged malpractice.

At trial, the Defendant presented testimony from an expert witness, Todd Albert, MD, who testified that Dr Kramer had not deviated from the requisite standard of care. Doctor Albert went on, however, to opine that in not ordering certain additional tests, Dr. Kramer was on solid footing:

"I am with residents, fellows,
and medical students all the time. So, we are
ordering a lot of tests on everything so they have the
opportunity to read them. And you could say, oh, that’s
wasteful, but that is part of being at a teaching institution.
One. It is for teaching purposes as much as anything,
for they have one more chance to look at just
one more—they have another dot in their exposure.
‘‘The second reason is much different than in this
part of the country and this state. I live in the worst
malpractice community in the world. And people—and
we practice a lot of defensive medicine. It’s true. It’s
unfortunate, but it’s true. And so we order way more
tests. You hear about the cost of medicine going up.
Weare the epicenter of it because we have more doctors
leaving because they can’t get insurance and things like
that. So, we order way more tests than are necessary
to protect ourselves. And that’s just a fact. And so we
get acclimated to practicing like that."

At that point, the Plaintiff's lawyer moved for a mistrial based upon Dr. Albert's prejudicial remarks. The trial court refused to do that and the Plaintiff, after losing the case, took an appeal.

The Appellate Court ruled that Dr. Albert's remarks as cited above were in fact unduly prejusicial and ordered a new trial.

The entire text of the Court's opinion can be read here.

Kevin Maher Passes

Long time Connecticut Worker's Compensation attorney Kevin Maher pased away Monday, January 11, 2010. Kevin was one of the founding principals of Maher and Williams in Fairfield. He was beloved by all of us who toil in the field of worker's compensation law, whether we agreed with the stance he took or not in any given case. Kevin was one of the classic lawyers on the Connecticut scene. He will be missed.

Kevin's obituary may be read here.

Voronuk vs. Electric Boat: Contributing Factor must be "Substantial"

The Connecticut Appellate Court released it's decison on December 1, 2009 in the case of MARJORIE VORONUK v. ELECTRIC BOAT
CORPORATION ET AL. Voronuk concerns a claim for survivor's benefits under section 31-306 of the Connecticut Worker's Compensation Act.

According to the decision, Joseph Voronuk, the plaintiff’s late husband, who died in 1995,
testified by deposition on November 14, 1989, that he
first worked for the defendant in 1942 as a shipfitter
for approximately six months to one year and that during
that period he was exposed to asbestos while on
the job. He and the plaintiff were married in 1947 and
remained married and living together until his death.
He resumed employment with the defendant in 1951
as a carpenter. He testified that in the course of his
employment as a carpenter for the defendant he was
exposed to asbestos. He testified that in 1982, due to
complaints of chest pain, he was examined by Paul
Gerity, a physician. Gerity’s notes of the examination
reveal that the decedent was fearful that his prolonged
exposure to asbestos on the job made him susceptible
to asbestosis. The decedent’s medical records show
that from October, 1982, through April, 1986, he was
treated by Gerity and William G. Crawford, another
physician, for, among other things, complaints of chest
pain. The decedent also testified that in 1985, at the
defendant’s request, he had a medical screening for
asbestosis performed by personnel at Boston University
Medical Center. It was as a result of this medical screening
that he first learned of his diagnosis of asbestosis.
On March 17, 1986, he filed with the commissioner a
form 30-C, claiming that his lung disease was a result
of workplace exposure to lung irritants. The decedent
retired from the defendant’s employ in 1986.
The decedent thereafter continued to monitor and
to treat his lung condition, although it worsened. In
September, 1993, he was hospitalized and diagnosed
with congestive heart failure, cardiomyopathy, asbestosis
and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. He was
again hospitalized in July and November, 1994, due to
complications resulting from congestive heart failure,
pleural effusions, cardiomegaly, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, hypoxia and asbestosis. He died
on October 13, 1995. His death certificate listed the
immediate cause of death as cardiorespiratory arrest
due to cardiomyopathy and congestive heart failure.
It also listed diabetes mellitus as another condition
contributing to death but not related to cause.

In
1996, Mark R. Cullen, a physician, reviewed the decedent’s
medical records and prepared a report that the
plaintiff submitted to the commissioner. Cullen’s report
initially set out the basis for the opinions contained
therein and concluded: ‘‘Putting all the above information
into context, it would bemy opinion that underlying
restrictive lung disease was a contributory factor in the
development of cardiorespiratory failure which ultimately
caused [the decedent’s] demise in 1995. Since
his interstitial lung disease was due to asbestosis, I
would consider his work exposure contributory to his
death.’’ This report, along with the death certificate, was
the only evidence the plaintiff submitted concerning
the cause of the decedent’s death.

The Trial Commissioner, after hearing all of the evidence, concluded that because no expert medical opinion was profferred by the widow that Mr. Voronuk's past exposure to asbestos in his work at E.B. was a "substantial contributing factor, " she had not met her burden of proof with regards to establishing compensibility. The Compensation Review Board affirmed the trial commissioner, and now the Appellate Court has concluded likewise.

The Court goes out of its' way to state that it does not consider the expression "substantial contributing factor" to be a magic phrase, per se, however that conclusion is hard to escape.

The take away message is that when in doubt, the wise claimant's attorney should ask doctor for clarification of any ambiguous opinions. Schedule an hour of the doctor's time and explain to him or her what it is that is needed. Have an honest discussion about the medical legal implications of the doctor's opinions. With Voronuk on the books, we have been forewarned.

Worker's Comp Mileage reimbursement Rate Falls

From the Connecticut Workers Compensation Commission Website:

The mileage reimbursement rate for all travel expenses incurred on or after January 1, 2010 is now 50.0 cents per mile. This rate change applies to all claimants, regardless of injury date, and coincides with the federal mileage reimbursement rate pursuant to Section 31-312(a) of the Workers’ Compensation Act.