(a) An injured employee shall submit himself to examination by a reputable practicing physician or surgeon, at any time while claiming or receiving compensation, upon the reasonable request of the employer or at the direction of the administrative law judge. The examination shall be performed to determine the nature of the injury and the incapacity resulting from the injury. The physician or surgeon shall be selected by the employer from an approved list of physicians and surgeons prepared by the chairperson of the Workers' Compensation Commission and shall be paid by the employer. At any examination requested by the employer or directed by the administrative law judge under this section, the injured employee shall be allowed to have in attendance any reputable practicing physician or surgeon that the employee obtains and pays for himself. The employee shall submit to all other physical examinations as required by this chapter. The refusal of an injured employee to submit himself to a reasonable examination under this section shall suspend his right to compensation during such refusal.
(b) All medical reports concerning any injury of an employee sustained in the course of his employment shall be furnished within thirty days after the completion of the reports, at the same time and in the same manner, to the employer and the employee or his attorney.
(P.A. 91-32, S. 14, 41; 91-339, S. 49, 55; P.A. 96-125; P.A. 21-18, S. 1; P.A. 22-89, S. 19.)
History: P.A. 91-339 amended Subsec. (a) to change “commissioners” to “chairman of the workers' compensation commission”; P.A. 96-125 amended Subsec. (b) by replacing “Any medical reports resulting from an examination requested by an employer or directed by the commissioner under this section” with “All medical reports concerning any injury of an employee sustained in the course of his employment” and by deleting the provision re furnishing of all “other” medical reports; pursuant to P.A. 21-18, “commissioner” was changed editorially by the Revisors to “administrative law judge” in Subsec. (a), effective October 1, 2021; P.A. 22-89 made a technical change in Subsec. (a), effective May 24, 2022.
Cited. 228 C. 1.
Statute provides employer the right to an independent and meaningful medical examination of injured employee. 65 CA 592. Although plain language of statute authorizes physical or mental examinations by reputable practicing physician or surgeon and defendant's vocational rehabilitation expert is not a medical doctor, statute does not limit broad equitable powers of commissioner to act pursuant to the more general provisions that encourage full disclosure and cooperation among the parties during pendency of a claim; workers' compensation review board properly affirmed commissioner's decision to compel plaintiff to undergo vocational rehabilitation examination by a nonphysician selected by defendant, and commissioner did not abuse his discretion in precluding plaintiff from admitting evidence from her vocational rehabilitation expert when she disregarded commissioner's order to submit to examination by defendant's vocational rehabilitation expert. 91 CA 470. Section does not mandate commissioner order a commissioner's examination to resolve conflicting evidence, though nothing in the statute prohibits the commissioner from doing so. 169 CA 103.
Notes of Decisions
Bidoae v. Hartford Golf Club, 881 A.2d 418 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 7× “Whether General Statutes § 31-294f 4 precludes a commissioner from com *476 pelling a plaintiff to submit to a vocational rehabilitation examination, conducted by a person who is not a physician, is a question that has not been previously subject to judicial consideration.”
Bailey v. State, 783 A.2d 491 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 4× “The board reasoned that the commissioner possessed the authority, under General Statutes § 31-298, 6 to determine *602 whether a request for an independent medical examination, as afforded by General Statutes § 31-294f, 7 was reasonable.”
Gillis v. White Oak Corp., 716 A.2d 115 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 5× “6 Pursuant to General Statutes § 31-294f (a), 7 the commissioner ordered that the plaintiff submit to an examination by Robert L.”
Sanchez v. Mfg., 166 A.3d 49 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 6× “Where a commissioner chooses not to adopt the diagnosis of the physician performing that examination, he or she should articulate the reasons behind his or her decision to disregard the examiner's report.”
Tartaglino v. Dep't of Corr., 737 A.2d 993 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 31-294f (a) provides in relevant part: “An injured employee shall submit himself to examination by a reputable practicing physician or surgeon, at any time while claiming or receiving compensation, upon the reasonable request of the employer or at, the…”
Jodlowski v. Stanley Works, 147 A.3d 741 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 7× “On appeal the plaintiff claims that it was improper for the commissioner (1) to deny his request for lumbar fusion surgery, (2) to fail to consider the conflicting opinions of medical experts, and (3) to decline to order a commissioner's medical examination, pursuant to General…”
Arrico v. Bd. of Educ., 212 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022).
· cites it 2× “The examination shall be performed to determine the nature of the injury and the incapacity resulting from the injury.”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-294f(a): 1 case
Sanchez v. Mfg., 166 A.3d 49 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
“Where a commissioner chooses not to adopt the diagnosis of the physician performing that examination, he or she should articulate the reasons behind his or her decision to disregard the examiner's report.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.