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

Horta v. American Rental Centers

CASE NO. 1822 CRB-5-93-8

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

SEPTEMBER 9, 1994

ANTONIO HORTA

CLAIMANT-APPELLEE

v.

AMERICAN RENTAL CENTERS

EMPLOYER

NO RECORD OF INSURANCE

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT

and

SECOND INJURY FUND

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented by Thomas Porzio, Esq., 29 Central Avenue, Waterbury, CT 06702 (did not appear at oral argument) - trial counsel only.

The Respondent, American Rental Centers, did not appear.

The Respondent, Second Injury Fund was represented by Taka Iwashita, Assistant Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120.

This Petition for Review from the July 22, 1993 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Fifth District was heard August 26, 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.

DISMISSAL

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. Respondent, American Mutual Insurance Co. appealed the July 22, 1993 Finding and Award of the Fifth District. Respondent’s Petition for Review was dated August 16, 1993 and was received August 18, 1993 by the Fifth District office in Waterbury. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-301(a) requires that a party appeal an award by a commissioner within ten days after entry of the award. Here, the respondent’s appeal was received by the commission on August 18, 1993, twenty-seven days after the entry of the award. This is clearly untimely and fatal to the respondent’s appeal. See Svarplaitis v. Kimberly Clark Corporation, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 124, 1264 CRD-7-91-7 (1992).

Moreover, the respondent-appellant has failed to prosecute the appeal with due diligence, as no documents have been filed other than the Petition for Review. Respondent-Appellant also failed to appear at oral argument on August 26, 1994 to show cause why its appeal should not be dismissed. Such a lack of diligence also constitutes grounds for dismissal of the appeal. See Practice Book Sec. 4055; see also, Lauriano v. Reliance Automotive, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 96, 934 CRD-8-89-11 (1991).

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

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: December 10, 2014

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1994/1822crb.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