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

Burke v. Abacus Transfer & Storage et al.

CASE NO. 1782 CRB 3-93-7

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

NOVEMBER 3, 1994

BARRY BURKE

CLAIMANT-APPELLEE

v.

ABACUS TRANSFER & STORAGE

EMPLOYER

NO RECORD OF INSURANCE

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT

and

AMERICAN RED BALL TRANSIT CO.

EMPLOYER

and

ITT HARTFORD

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

and

SECOND INJURY FUND

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented by Sharon E. Tveskov, Esq. and Bart Peters, Esq., Brown & Welsh, P.C., 100 Hanover St., P. O. Box 183, Meriden, CT 06450.

The respondents American Red Ball Transit Co. and ITT Hartford were represented by Douglas L. Drayton, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton & Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Blvd., Glastonbury, CT 06033-4412.

No one appeared on behalf of Abacus Transfer & Storage, the party who filed the appeal.

The Second Injury Fund was represented by Richard R. Hine, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, P. O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120.

This Petition for Review from the July 16, 1993 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Third District was heard June 24, 1994 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Angelo L. dos Santos and Nancy A. Brouillet.

OPINION

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The respondent Abacus Transfer & Storage timely petitioned for review from the Third District Commissioner’s July 16, 1993 Finding and Award of Compensation. To date neither reasons for appeal nor a brief has been filed by the respondent. The last document it filed was a motion for a 45-day extension of time to file a motion to correct with the commissioner of the Third District. That motion was granted on July 27, 1993. A motion to correct was not subsequently filed by the respondent. No representative for the respondent attended either the formal hearing held on June 1, 1994 by the commissioner, at which a supplemental finding and award was made against the respondent, or the oral argument held before this Board on June 24, 1994.

As the respondent Abacus Transfer and Storage has neglected to actively pursue its appeal, we must dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4055. See Perkins v. Rudy Fogg & Son, 1697 CRB-2-93-4 (decided March 28, 1994); Divita v. Thames Valley Steel, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 50, 1541 CRB-2-92-10 (1994); Hargatai v. Copy Data, Inc., 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 106, 107, 1475 CRB-4-92-7 (1993); Jones v. Middletown Mfg., 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 56, 57, 1296 CRD-8-91-9 (1993).

Commissioners Angelo L. dos Santos and Nancy A. Brouillet concur.

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: October 6, 2004

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1994/1782crb.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