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

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.

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: March 22, 2016

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1994/1697crb.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