You have reached the original website of the
   Connecticut Workers' Compensation Commission.

   Forms, publications, statutes, and most other
   information is now located at our NEW site:
   PORTAL.CT.GOV/WCC

CRB OPINIONS AND ANNOTATIONS
 
ARE STILL LOCATED AT THIS SITE WHILE IN THE
PROCESS OF BEING MIGRATED TO OUR NEW SITE.

Click to read CRB OPINIONS and CRB ANNOTATIONS.



Perkins v. Rudy Fogg & Son

CASE NO. 1697 CRB-2-93-4

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

MARCH 28, 1994

DUANE PERKINS

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

RUDY FOGG & SON

EMPLOYER

and

HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented by A. A. Washton, Esq., Washton, Segal & Rotella, 190 Broad Street, New London, CT 06320, who neither submitted a brief nor appeared at oral argument.

The respondents were represented by Jason M. Dodge, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton & Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Boulevard, Glastonbury, CT 06033-4412.

This Petition for Review from the March 30, 1993 Ruling on Notice of Intention to Discontinue Payments (Form 36) of the Commissioner for the Second District was heard October 29, 1993 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse Frankl and Commissioners George A. Waldron and Donald H. Doyle, Jr.

OPINION

JESSE FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant timely petitioned for review from the Second District Commissioner’s March 30, 1993 Ruling on Notice of Intention to Discontinue Payments (Form 36). He failed to file his Reasons of Appeal. On May 12, 1993, the respondents moved to dismiss the appeal based on the claimant’s alleged failure to file a timely appeal and the claimant’s failure to file his Reasons of Appeal in a timely fashion.

This appeal was calendared to be heard by the Board on October 29, 1993, on the issue of whether it should be dismissed as a late appeal and whether it should be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Notwithstanding an extension of time granted until August 30, 1993, no brief was filed by the claimant. The claimant failed to appear at oral argument.

As the claimant has not filed Reasons of Appeal, appeared or submitted a brief, we must dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute with due diligence. See Practice Book Sec. 4055; Sinkowski v. Continental Auto, 1398 CRB-8-92-3 (decided November 9, 1993). Jones v. Middletown Manufacturing, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 56, 1296 CRD-8-91-9 (1993); Smith v. City of New Haven, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 93, 1154 CRD-3-90-12 (1992); Lauriano v. Reliance Automotive, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 96, 934 CRD-8-89-11 (1991).

Commissioners George A. Waldron and Donald H. Doyle, Jr. concur.

 



   You have reached the original website of the
   Connecticut Workers' Compensation Commission.

   Forms, publications, statutes, and most other
   information is now located at our NEW site:
   PORTAL.CT.GOV/WCC

CRB OPINIONS AND ANNOTATIONS
 
ARE STILL LOCATED AT THIS SITE WHILE IN THE
PROCESS OF BEING MIGRATED TO OUR NEW SITE.

Click to read CRB OPINIONS and CRB ANNOTATIONS.