CASE NO. 1846 CRB-3-93-9
COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 24, 1994
SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE CO.
The claimant appeared pro se.
The respondent was represented by Steven Ekern, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton & Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Blvd., Glastonbury, CT 06033-4412.
This order concerning claimant’s Motion to Submit Additional Evidence dated September 17, 1993 was heard 10/7/94 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Angelo L. dos Santos and Michael S. Miles.
The claimant’s motion to submit additional evidence dated September 17, 1993 and considered by the Compensation Review Board panel on October 7, 1994 is hereby denied. The pro se claimant stated at oral argument that she had submitted certain medical reports to the Third District Commissioner’s office, but did not know that she had to have them marked for identification and formally offered into evidence. Of the five work-related injuries alleged by the claimant, the commissioner dismissed four on the ground that the claimant had failed to sustain her burden of proof that those injuries existed or arose out of and in the course of her employment. The claimant argued that the inadvertently omitted evidence would have established the claims that were dismissed.
Administrative Regulation § 31-301-9 provides that “[i]f any party to an appeal shall allege that additional evidence or testimony is material and that there were good reasons for failure to present it in the proceedings before the commissioner,” that party may by written motion present the evidence to this Board and argue for its admission. We find that the claimant has not complied with this regulation because her excuse for her failure to properly introduce some of her evidence before the trial commissioner, i.e., her unfamiliarity with the rules of evidentiary procedure, was not a “good reason” for failing to present it at the appropriate time. See Lesczynski v. New Britain Memorial Hospital, 10 Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 205, 209, 1289 CRD-6-91-9 (1992). The evidence was clearly available to the claimant at the time of the hearings before the trial commissioner and, assuming it was material, should have been placed in evidence then.
We therefore deny the motion to submit additional evidence.
By the Compensation Review Board
Jesse M. Frankl, Chairman
Presiding Commissioner for the Compensation Review Board Panel