2017 CRB Opinions
pertaining to
Sec. 31-301. Factual findings.
Compensation Review Board opinions are presented for informational purposes only — “as is” — and the Commission makes no warranties regarding their usefulness for any given purpose. As always, the full texts of statutes, regulations, opinions, and court decisions should be consulted and all citations and references fully researched by the reader.
Anthony v. Aramark Corporation
Case No. 6168 CRB-2-17-1 — December 29, 2017
Arnold v. Walsh PCL Joint Venture II
Case No. 6052 CRB-3-15-11 — February 7, 2017
Baker v. Moylan Property Services
Case No. 6133 CRB-8-16-8 — August 9, 2017
Dwyer v. Insperity Services, L.P.
Case No. 6083 CRB-6-16-3 — March 23, 2017
Ferrua v. Napoli Foods, Inc.
Case No. 6137 CRB-5-16-9 — July 27, 2017
Grant v. LeafGuard of Southern CT, L.L.C. d/b/a DiGiorgi Roofing and Siding
Case No. 6147 CRB-5-16-10 — October 5, 2017
Greene v. Ansonia Copper & Brass
Case No. 6111 CRB-5-16-6 — June 9, 2017
Jelliffe v. Kennedy Center, Inc.
Case No. 6104 CRB-4-16-6 — June 16, 2017
Katsovich v. Herrick & Cowell Company, Inc.
Case No. 6148 CRB-3-16-11 — October 4, 2017
Palacios v. Dual-Lite et al.
Case No. 6078 CRB-8-16-3 — February 23, 2017
Pederzoli v. United Technologies Pratt & Whitney et al.
Case No. 6129 CRB-8-16-9 — July 18, 2017
Peralta-Gonzalez v. First Student
Case No. 6160 CRB-7-16-12 — November 16, 2017
Pisaturo v. Logistec, USA, Inc.
Case No. 6105 CRB-1-16-6 — May 16, 2017
Pitruzzello v. State of Connecticut Department of Transportation
Case No. 6093 CRB-8-16-5 — March 24, 2017
Rowland v. Town of Woodbridge
Case No. 6087 CRB-3-16-3 — March 31, 2017
Shults v. D. J. Hall Roofing, LLC
Case No. 6071 CRB-5-16-1 — January 13, 2017
Watley v. City of New Haven/Police Department
Case No. 6158 CRB-3-16-12 — November 15, 2017
The Workers' Compensation Commission recommends the use of Adobe's free Adobe Acrobat Reader software application when accessing CRB Opinions in PDF format.
Get the Adobe Acrobat Reader by clicking the following button: 
The Workers' Compensation Commission's recommendation of Adobe's free Adobe Acrobat Reader software application is based solely on technical considerations inherent in the PDF files this agency produces, and does not constitute an endorsement of Adobe Software as a company or of its commercially-available products. There are a multitude of free and commercial software applications offered by various software makers that are capable of opening and displaying our PDF documents, but only the Adobe Acrobat Reader application makes full and accurate use of the capabilities we have built into our documents; the agency has found over a period of many years that the Adobe Acrobat Reader provides the best, most trouble-free experience using this Commission's PDF files.