State of Connecticut Workers' Compensation Commission, John A. Mastropietro, Chairman
Home News RSS News QUICK Find Index Search E-Mail
General Information Glossary Law CRB Opinions Workers' Compensation Commission Downloadable Forms and Publications Links

Lederman v. Friendly Ice Cream Corporation

CASE NO. 1420 CRB-5-92-5

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

SEPTEMBER 3, 1993

PAT LEDERMAN

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

FRIENDLY ICE CREAM CORPORATION

EMPLOYER

and

AMERICAN MOTORIST INSURANCE COMPANY

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented by Richard E. Lacey, Esq., 225 North Main Street, Bristol, CT, 06010 who did not submit a brief and did not appear at oral argument.

The respondents were represented by Polly L. Orenstein, Esq., Law Office of Michael Brodinsky, 125 Washington Avenue, P. O. Box 35, North Haven, CT 06473, who did not submit a brief but did appear at oral argument.

This Petition for Review from the April 28, 1992 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner for the Fifth District was heard March 26, 1993 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse Frankl, and Commissioners George Waldron and Donald H. Doyle, Jr.

OPINION

JESSE FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant petitioned for review from the Commissioner for the Fifth District’s April 28, 1992 Finding and Dismissal of her claim. She timely filed her Reasons of Appeal. The claimant also filed a Motion for Additional Evidence pursuant to Administrative Regulation Sec. 31-301-9. The Motion for Additional Evidence was considered on October 30, 1992 and thereafter denied due to the claimant’s failure to satisfy the requirements of Administrative Regulation Sec. 31-301-9.

This appeal was calendared to be heard by the Board on March 26, 1993. No brief was filed by the claimant by January 15, 1993, as directed in the calendar. On January 20, 1993, the respondents filed a Motion for Nonsuit, requesting dismissal of the present appeal due to the claimant’s failure to file her brief in a timely manner. The claimant failed to respond to this motion or appear at oral argument.

As the claimant has not appeared or submitted a brief, we must dismiss her appeal for failure to prosecute with due diligence. See Practice Book Sec. 4055; Jones v. Middletown Manufacturing, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 56, 1296 CRD-8-91-9 (1993); Lauriano v. Reliance Automotive, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. 96, 934 CRD-8-89-11 (1991); Coco v. Dunham-Bush, Inc., 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 48, 415 CRD-1-85 (1987).

Commissioners George Waldron and Donald H. Doyle, Jr. concur in this opinion.

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: March 22, 2016

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1993/1420crb.htm

Workers’ Compensation Commission Disclaimer, Privacy Policy and Website Accessibility

State of Connecticut Workers' Compensation Commission, John A. Mastropietro, Chairman
Home News RSS News QUICK Find Index Search E-Mail
General Information Glossary Law CRB Opinions Workers' Compensation Commission Downloadable Forms and Publications Links