Argued
September 19, 2019
Page 534
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 535
Paul
T. Dombrowski, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).
Brian
L. Smith, for the appellees (defendants).
Alvord,
Moll and Norcott, Js.
OPINION
MOLL,
J.
[194
Conn.App. 740] The self-represented plaintiff, Paul
Dombrowski, appeals from the decision of the Compensation
Review Board (board) affirming the decision of the Workers
Compensation Commissioner for the Third District
(commissioner) of the Workers Compensation Commission
(commission), denying the plaintiffs motion to open a
stipulation executed by the plaintiff and the defendants, the
city of New Haven (city) and the Connecticut Interlocal Risk
Management Agency (CIRMA). On appeal, the plaintiff raises a
number of claims that, in essence, challenge the propriety of
the boards decision affirming the commissioners denial of
his motion to open. We affirm the decision of the board.
The
following procedural history and facts, as found by the
commissioner in her "finding and dismissal," [194
Conn.App. 741] dated October 11, 2016, or as undisputed in
the record, are relevant to our resolution of this appeal.
The plaintiff is a retired police officer who was formerly
employed by the city.[1] Following his retirement, the
plaintiff sought to settle certain pending workers
compensation claims relating to several injuries that he had
sustained during his employment with the city. After numerous
informal hearings, the plaintiff, without the assistance of
counsel, agreed to accept a global settlement of his workers
compensation claims for a lump sum payment of $22,500. The
settlement was contingent upon the approval of the funds by
the citys litigation settlement committee, which approved
the funds on September 23, 2015. On September 29, 2015, the
commission issued a notice providing that a
Page 536
stipulation approval hearing was scheduled for September 30,
2015.
On the
morning of September 30, 2015, prior to the stipulation
approval hearing, the plaintiff, accompanied by Craig Miller,
the president of the police union, met with the defendants
counsel. The defendants counsel presented the plaintiff with
two documents: (1) a "Stipulation," dated September
28, 2015 (stipulation); and (2) a "Settlement Agreement,
General Release and Covenant Not to Sue," dated
September 29, 2015 (settlement agreement). The stipulation
provided in relevant part: "[I]t is agreed by and
between the parties hereto that the [defendants] shall pay to
the [plaintiff] in addition to the compensation and medical
benefits already paid by the [defendants] the further sum of
[$22,500], the same is to be in full, final and complete
settlement, adjustment accord, and satisfaction of all claims
which the aforesaid [plaintiff] might otherwise have against
the [defendants], or either of them, and be made and accepted
in lieu of all other compensation payments, in accordance
with our [Workers Compensation Act (act), General Statutes §
31-275 et seq.]." The stipulation [194 Conn.App. 742]
did not reference the settlement agreement. The settlement
agreement provided in relevant part: "[The plaintiff]
... for and in consideration of both monetary sums and by
action previously recited within the content of [the
stipulation] attached as Exhibit A hereto, receipt of which
is hereby acknowledged, [does] remise, release and forever
discharge ... [the city] ... as to any and all actions,
causes and causes of action, sums of money, covenants,
contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, damages,
claims and demands whatsoever, in law or in equity ... as a
result of [the plaintiffs] employment or with severance of
[the plaintiffs] employment with [the city] from the
commencement of [the plaintiffs] employment with [the city]
to the date of [the plaintiffs] execution of the [settlement
agreement], whether known or unsuspected, including all
claims, demands, or causes of action under any federal or
state law, regulation or decision including but not limited
to causes of action under the [Workers] Compensation Laws of
the State of Connecticut ... [t]he Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. [§ ] 621 et seq. [ADEA] ...
[and] [a]ny other federal, state or local civil or human
rights law or any other local, state or federal law,
regulation or ordinance."[2] The settlement agreement
also provided in relevant part: "[The plaintiff]
represent[s] that [the plaintiff has] been advised that [the
plaintiff] should consult and acknowledge[s] that [the
plaintiff has] consulted a private attorney with respect to
[the settlement agreement] and [has] been given an adequate
opportunity to discuss all aspects of [the settlement
agreement] with counsel of [the ...