Williams v. State Of Conn., AC 31630

TROY B. WILLIAMS

v.STATE OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL BRANCH, ET AL.

AC 31630

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Argued : September 14: 2010

Officially released : November 2, 2010

The "officially released" date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ''officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ''officially released'' date.

All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.Robinson, Alvord and Peters, Js.

(Appeal from workers' compensation review board.)

Troy B. Williams, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).

Kenneth H. Kennedy, Jr., assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Philip M. Schulz, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (named defendant).

Opinion

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff in this workers' compensation matter, Troy B. Williams, appeals from the decision of the workers' compensation review board (board) affirming the decision of the workers' compensation commissioner (commissioner) dismissing his claim for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act, General Statutes § 31-275 et seq., against the defendant, the state of Connecticut, judicial branch.¹ On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the board improperly upheld the commissioner's finding that the plaintiff engaged in wilful and serious misconduct, and (2) the commissioner improperly failed to draw an adverse inference against the defendant on the basis of spoliation of evidence.² We affirm the decision of the board.

The following facts and procedural history are necessary to the resolution of the plaintiff's appeal. At the time of the incident giving rise to this appeal, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a juvenile transportation officer (officer).³ On May 6, 2005, the plaintiff participated in a basketball game in a gym with seven detainees at the Hartford Juvenile Detention Center.⁴ At some point during the game, the plaintiff jumped in the air, knocked the ball out of a detainee's hands and began walking away. Although the plaintiff had an opportunity to continue to walk away, he turned around when the detainee said something. He walked toward the detainee until the two stood chest to chest. Shortly thereafter, a physical confrontation ensued when the plaintiff lunged toward the detainee and grabbed him under the arms, at which point the plaintiff almost landed on his knees when he lost his balance. As the plaintiff continued to hold onto the detainee, he regained his balance and continued to lunge forward. Two officers intervened in the struggle and restrained the detainee.

The plaintiff submitted a workers' compensation claim for injuries resulting to his back, neck, right wrist, ribs and right knee. At a hearing before the commissioner, the plaintiff claimed that his injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to benefits because his injuries were caused by wilful and serious misconduct within the meaning of General Statutes § 31-284 (a).⁵ On June 11, 2008, the commissioner ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff ''did not use proper restraint and crisis intervention techniques'' but instead ''used unauthorized and unnecessary force against the detainee, which constituted wilful and serious misconduct for [an officer].'' As a result, the commissioner dismissed the plaintiff's claim.⁶ The plaintiff appealed from the commissioner's decision to the board, which upheld the commissioner's decision. This appeal followed.

We begin by setting forth the standard of review applicable to workers' compensation appeals. ''The principles that govern our standard of review in workers' compensation appeals are well established.'' Cervero v. Mory's Assn., Inc., 122 Conn. App. 82, 90, 996 A.2d 1247, cert. denied, 298 Conn. 908, A.3d (2010). ''The board sits as an appellate tribunal reviewing the decision of the commissioner.... [T]he review [board's] hearing of an appeal from the commissioner is not a de novo hearing of the facts.... [T]he power and duty of determining the facts rests on the commissioner (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Paternostro v. Arborio Corp., 56 Conn. App. 215, 218-19, 742 A.2d 409 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 928, 746 A.2d 788 (2000). ''[T]he commissioner is the sole arbiter of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses....'' Keenan v. Union Camp Corp., 49 Conn. App. 280, 286, 714 A.2d 60 (1998). ''Where the subordinate facts allow for diverse inferences, the commissioner's selection of the inference to be drawn must stand unless it is based on an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally or unreasonably drawn from them.'' Paternostro v. Arborio Corp., supra, 219; see also Marroquin v. Monarca Masonry, 121 Conn. App. 400, 413, 994 A.2d 727 (2010).

''This court's review of decisions of the board is similarly limited.... The conclusions drawn by [the commissioner] from the facts found must stand unless they result from an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally orunrea-sonably drawn from them.... [W]e must interpret [the commissioner's finding] with the goal of sustaining that conclusion in light of all of the other supporting evidence.... Once the commissioner makes a factual finding, [we are] bound by that finding if there is evidence in the record to support it.'' (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Paternostro v. Arborio Corp., supra, 56 Conn. App. 219.

I

First, the plaintiff claims that the board improperly upheld the commissioner's finding that the plaintiff engaged in wilful and serious misconduct. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the commissioner's conclusion that the plaintiff's restraint techniques constituted wilful and serious misconduct was not supported by the record. We disagree.

Section 31-284 (a) provides in relevant part that ''compensation shall not be paid when the personal injury [to the employee] has been caused by the wilful and serious misconduct of the injured employee....'' Our Supreme Court has recognized that ''wilful and serious misconduct means something more than ordinary negligence.'' Gonier v. Chase Cos., 97 Conn. 46, 56, 115 A. 677 (1921); accord Greene v. Metals Selling Corp., 3 Conn. App. 40, 45, 484 A.2d 478 (1984). "[S]erious misconduct is wrong or improper conduct of a grave and aggravated character, and this is to be determined from its nature and not from its consequences.... The exposure by an employee of himself to injury would be misconduct if he knew of and appreciated his liability to injury, and would be serious misconduct if the circumstances indicated that the misconduct, in the light of his knowledge, was of a grave and aggravated character, and that he appreciated this fact.'' Mancini v. Scovill Mfg. Co., 98 Conn. 591, 597, 119 A. 897 (1923).

''Not only must the misconduct be of this grave character, but under the statute it must also be wilful.'' Gonier v. Chase Cos., supra, 97 Conn. 55. ''Wilful misconduct differs from serious misconduct, in that the former may be any kind of wrong or improper conduct, while the latter must be the conduct which is not only wrong or improper, but also of a grave and aggravated character. Further, wilful misconduct must be either intentional misconduct, that is, such as is done purposely with knowledge, or misconduct of such a character as to evince a reckless disregard of consequences to him who is guilty of it.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mancini v. Scovill Mfg. Co., supra, 98 Conn. 597-98. ''Reckless misconduct is highly unreasonable conduct, involving an extreme departure from ordinary care, in a situation where a high degree of danger is apparent.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Paternostro v. Arborio Corp., supra, 56 Conn. App. 221.

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence presented was adequate to support the commissioner's finding that the plaintiff's use of force against the detainee constituted wilful and serious misconduct. The evidence before the...