Argued
May 20, 2019
Procedural
History
Appeal
from the decision of the Workers' Compensation
Commissioner for the Seventh District finding that the
plaintiff had sustained a compensable injury and awarding,
inter alia, disability benefits; thereafter, the commissioner
denied the defendants' motion to correct; subsequently,
the defendants appealed to the Compensation Review Board,
which affirmed the commissioner's decision, and the
defendants appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Scott
Wilson Williams, for the appellants (defendants).
David
J. Morrissey, for the appellee (plaintiff).
DiPentima, C. J., and Lavine and Prescott, Js.
OPINION
PER
CURIAM.
The
defendants, the Stamford Police Department (police
department), and PMA Management Corporation of New England,
the workers' compensation liability insurer for the
police department, appeal from the decision of the
Compensation Review Board (board) affirming the finding and
award (award) of the Workers' Compensation Commissioner
for the Seventh District (commissioner) with respect to the
claim filed by the plaintiff, Thomas McGinty, under General
Statutes § 7-433c, [1] commonly referred to as the Heart and
Hypertension Act.[2] On appeal, the defendants principally
claim that the board improperly affirmed the
commissioner's award concluding that the plaintiff had
suffered from compensable heart disease. Before the
commissioner and on appeal, the defendants have argued that
the plaintiff's condition, arterial sclerosis, is not a
disease unique to the heart, but a systemic condition, and
is, therefore, not compensable heart disease. We affirm the
decision of the board.
In her
May 24, 2017 award, the commissioner made the following
findings of fact, which are relevant to our resolution of
this appeal. The plaintiff was employed as a police officer
from January 8, 1990 through April 15, 2011, when he retired
with a service related disability pension due to injuries he
sustained during the course of his employment.[3] The plaintiff
passed a preemployment physical that did not reveal evidence
of hypertension or heart disease. The plaintiff struggled to
control his weight and high cholesterol. In 2007, he
experienced left leg pain due to a blockage of his iliac
artery, which was treated twice by angioplasty. The plaintiff
was diagnosed with peripheral vascular disease. An
electrocardiogram and nuclear stress test were negative for
heart disease at that time.
In
2009, the plaintiff experienced shortness of breath and chest
pain. The results of a stress test performed on April 2,
2009, were positive and, when compared with the prior study,
revealed a new ‘‘defect.'' The plaintiff
was diagnosed with coronary artery disease and hypertension,
and medication was prescribed for the conditions. On April
24, 2009, the plaintiff underwent cardiac catheterization
that revealed two vessel coronary artery disease. The
plaintiff was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation on November
19, 2009, and he underwent an ablation on February 16, 2010.
A cardiac catheterization performed on September 14, 2011,
showed progression of the plaintiff's coronary artery
disease, and he underwent bypass surgery in December, 2011.
On May
27, 2009, the plaintiff filed a form 30C[4] claiming that he
was entitled to benefits under § 7-433c as a result of
hypertension and heart disease. On May 11, 2009, the police
department timely filed a form 43 contesting the claim and
also filed a supplemental form 43 on June 2,
2009.[5]
Joseph
R. Anthony, a cardiologist, examined the plaintiff on
September 3, 2010. Anthony reported that the plaintiff had
both coronary heart disease and hypertension. On July 15,
2014, Anthony gave the plaintiff a 24 percent disability
impairment due to his hypertensive cardiovascular disease and
a 26 percent disability impairment for his coronary heart
disease. The combined rating was 44 percent. Anthony also
assigned an 11 to 13 percent disability impairment for the
plaintiff's ventricular tachycardia, or arrhythmia.
Martin
J. Krauthamer, a cardiologist, examined the plaintiff on
behalf of the defendants. Krauthamer found no evidence of
hypertension in the plaintiff more than a year prior to
April, 2009. He testified at the formal hearing that in 2010,
the plaintiff clearly had vascular disease, but that it had
not yet impacted his heart, and, therefore, the plaintiff did
not have cardiovascular disease at that time. Krauthamer
opined that the disease process that resulted in a blockage
of the plaintiff's coronary artery was the same process
that resulted in a blockage of the peripheral arteries of his
groin. According to Krauthamer, the atherosclerotic process
occurs separately in different parts of the body as it is a
systemic disease. He assigned the plaintiff a disability
rating of 8 percent due to hypertension and an 11 percent
disability rating due to his premature ventricular
contractions.
On the
basis of the evidence presented at the formal hearing, the
commissioner accepted the plaintiff's claim. She found
his testimony and medical evidence to be credible and
persuasive in support of a heart disease and hypertension
claim pursuant to § 7-433c. The commissioner found
Anthony's opinion and reports to be more credible than
Krauthamer's.[6] The commissioner concluded that the
plaintiff had reached maximum medical improvement on
September 3, 2010, and had disability ratings of 24 percent
due to hypertension, 26 percent due to coronary artery
disease, and 11 percent due to arrhythmia. She ...