The Connecticut Compensation Review Board’s (CRB) recent May 1 decision in Ellsworth v. Waterbury Hospital, CRB-5-25-3 reinforced a practical but relevant principle in Connecticut workers’ compensation litigation. The opinion confirmed that administrative law judges have broad discretion to rely on testimony from non-physicians when resolving disputes.
The claimant treated with a psychiatrist, Dr. Alfred Herzog, who assessed a 15-percent PPD rating to the brain. In a Respondent’s Medical Examination (RME), Dr. James Pier opined the claimant did not need further psychological or psychiatric treatment and that the claimant did not suffer a permanent partial psychiatric disability.
At the formal hearing, the Fifth District found that the opinion of Dr. Pier was more persuasive than the treating psychiatrist, Dr. Herzog, with respect to the claimant’s impairment rating to the brain.
In her appeal to the CRB, the claimant argued that the neuropsychologist’s opinion was unreliable because he is not a “physician” under §31-275 of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The claimant further argued that “neuropsychologists do not treat patients, they do not prescribe medications, they do not attend medical school, and most importantly, they are not licensed physicians. In other words, a neuropsychologist performs diagnostic testing.” (pp. 7-8, citing to the June 19, 2025, Claimant-Appellant’s Brief, p. 6).
However, the CRB reviewed the text of §31-275 and determined that the definition of “physician” was someone licensed under the laws of Connecticut to perform a “healing art” under §20-1. The CRB opined that if the statute were to be construed in a way as to limit the definition of “physician,” it would exclude a wide range of experts on which ALJs could rely. This could include “out of state physicians and opinions from a variety of other medical professionals.”
Most importantly, the CRB noted that if the statute were narrowly construed, it would directly violate the broad powers of an ALJ set forth in §31-278 and §31-298, which state that an ALJ has broad power to carry out the provisions of the CT Workers’ Compensation Act. ALJs routinely rely on testimony from non-physicians, such as chiropractors, psychologists, and in this instance, neuropsychologists to resolve disputes.
In reaching its decision, the CRB also cited to the Connecticut Supreme Court case of DiLieto v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., 265 Conn. 79 (2003). In DiLieto, the court noted that a trial court had “wide discretion in ruling on the qualification of expert witnesses and the admissibility of their opinions.” The CRB noted that the “statutory requirement for an expert in a civil malpractice action is considerably more stringent than the evidentiary standards in our forum.”
In Ellsworth, the CRB noted that the formal-hearing decision was based on detailed explanations in Dr. Pier’s report. The CRB opined that it would be improper to overturn the formal-hearing decision, as the CRB was “able to ascertain a reasonable diagnostic method behind the challenged medical opinion, we must honor the trier’s discretion to credit that opinion above a conflicting diagnosis.” Strong v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney, 4653 CRB-1-02-8 (August 25, 2003).
This decision inevitably gives respondents more flexibility in defending complex claims where a treater, such as a neuropsychologist, would provide relevant testimony in the defense of a claim. Further, an administrative law judge does not have to accept a treating physician’s rating simply because the provider is a “physician.”
However, the same is true in the opposite, as claimants will also be able to use qualified professionals who are not “physicians” to support their claims for indemnity and disability benefits. ALJs will look to confirm that medical professionals are “licensed” to perform a “healing art.”
For our clients, it is important that we use the correct expert for the issue at hand to provide a strong, well-supported position, using a “reasonable diagnostic method” to benefit the defense of a claim.
Andrew J. Even is a partner at Goldberg Segalla who focuses his practice on representing large and small employers, insurance companies, and third-party administrators in Workers’ Compensation claims before the Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Commission. He advises clients throughout the claims process, including informal, pre-formal, and formal hearings, and is fluent in all stages of litigation, including conducting depositions.
Scott Ziegler is an associate at Goldberg Segalla who represents employers, insurance carriers, and third-party administrators in workers’ compensation litigation throughout Connecticut. He is involved in every stage of the workers’ compensation claims-handling process, including strategy, discovery, depositions, hearings and trials.