Velez v. Guilford Gravure

CASE NO. 1997 CRB-3-94-2

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

MAY 4, 1995

ROBERTO VELEZ

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

GUILFORD GRAVURE

EMPLOYER

and

ITT HARTFORD

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant did not appear at oral argument. Claimant was represented on appeal by Frank P.Cannatelli, Esq., 7 South Main Street, Branford, CT 06405. At the trial level the claimant was represented by Joseph E. De Paola, Esq., P. O. Box 351, 84 Washington Ave. North Haven, CT 06473.

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

This Motion To Permit Appeal Of Findings from the January 19, 1994 Finding of Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Third District was heard October 28, 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 ORDER

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant filed a Motion To Permit Appeal Of Findings on February 18, 1994. Claimant’s motion was untimely, having been filed approximately thirty days after the trial commissioner’s January 19,1994 Finding of Dismissal. The claimant’s motion for appeal was not filed within the time limit prescribed by §31-301(a), which states that “[a]t any time within ten days after entry of an award by the commissioner, . . . either party may appeal therefrom to the compensation review board by filing in the office of the commissioner . . . an appeal petition . . . .”. The timeliness of the claimant’s appeal implicates our subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. Johnson v. ARA Services Inc., 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 19, 765 CRD-7-88-8 (1989). We conclude that the claimant’s appeal was not filed within the time limits required by §31-301(a) and we thus dismiss it as untimely.

Moreover, even if jurisdiction existed to consider the claimant’s appeal, we would dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4055. To date claimant has failed to file his reasons for appeal, a motion to correct or a brief. See Burke v. Abacus Transfer & Storage, 1782 CRB-3-93-7 (decided November 3, 1994); Perkins v. Rudy Fogg & Son, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 241, 1697 CRB-2-93-4 (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.