Here is a story of an injured worker put through hell by The State of Connecticut Attorney General 
over six years when she was considered to be “Totally Disabled”. 

     She was unable to defend herself and could only participate in a limited capacity in 
her own “defense” against the vicious acquisitions from the State of Connecticut Attorney 
Generals’ Office.  

     The attacks against this injured worker from the Attorney General became so vicious t
hat the Compensation Review Board was forced (I hate to think by compassion) to issue 
a Protective Order to the injured worker to eliminate further attacks by the Attorney General. 

     Quoting the Workers Compensation Commission Rulings from several hearings in the 
CASE No. 3915 CRB-02-90-10.

     “It is clear from the transcript and the Compensation Review Board trier's findings 
that he was dismayed by the manner in which the respondent, State of Connecticut 
Attorney Generals’ Office defended this claim.“ 
(Her claim is against the State of Connecticut as a state employee.) 

     He wrote that, "Despite having sufficient time to prepare after the remand, the Respondent, 
State of Connecticut Attorney Generals’ Office, presented no evidence to substantiate its 
contentions or alleged defenses."

     The respondent State of Connecticut Attorney Generals’ Office protests 
that this finding is erroneous, because it was the claimant's burden to prove her disability, 
and the respondent was able to cast doubt upon her claim by cross-examining her and 
her treating physician, without having to introduce witnesses of its own. 

     “The manner in which a party defends a case can be relevant to the issue of whether 
its contest of a claim is reasonable, and the substance and merit of a party's theory of defense 
can be viewed in light of the evidentiary decisions that affect it. 

      The $7,500 amount awarded by the commissioner in  of his decision is therefore affirmed.” CRB

 At the next formal hearing

    (Aug. 14, 1997), the respondent requested the opportunity to cross-examine the claimant based 
on school and employment records it had received the previous day. The trier denied this 
request on the ground that the respondent had been given sufficient time to conduct discovery, 
but had waited until the last minute to prepare its case. 

     He then granted a Motion for Protective Order that would prevent the 
     State of Connecticut Attorney Generals’ Office from again calling 
     the claimant as a witness, from which decision the respondent appealed. 

     At a formal hearing on May 22, 1998, the trier denied the respondent's 
     Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery. 

     The respondent appealed from that ruling as well.
 
     True story, look it up. Connecticut Compensation Review Board CASE No. 3915 CRB-02-90-10.

     The $ 7,500.00 attorney fees awarded to the claimant due to the
     unreasonable contest of a claim by The State of Connecticut Attorney
     General I am sure came from taxpayer funding, not the Assistant
     Attorney General Prosecutors salary.

     So add the time of the WC, etc. and this little excursion probably cost how much?