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

Bueno v. Stew Leonard’s

CASE NO. 2017 CRB-7-94-4

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

MAY 26, 1995

PEDRO BUENO

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

STEW LEONARD’S

EMPLOYER

and

CNA INSURANCE CO.

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented at the trial level by Roy DeBarbieri, Esq., of Schine & Julianelle P.C., P.O. Box 905, 477 Boston Post Road, Orange, CT 06477. Although appeal papers were initiated on claimant’s behalf, no one appeared at oral argument nor were any papers beyond the initial appeal petition filed.

The respondents were represented by Kevin Blake, Esq., formerly of and Howard Levine, Esq., presently of Law Offices of Grant H. Miller, Jr., 29 South Main Street, Suite 310 N, West Hartford, CT 06107.

This Petition for Review from the March 31, 1994 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner Acting for the Seventh District was heard February 24, 1995 before a Compensation Review Board Panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Linda Blenner Johnson and Amado J. Vargas.

RULING RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant filed a Petition for Review from the March 31, 1994 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Seventh District. No other papers in support of claimant’s appeal were filed.1 The respondents filed a Motion To Dismiss dated December 13, 1994 and received December 19, 1994 which sought dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Practice Book § 4055. In its Motion To Dismiss respondents noted that no Reasons of Appeal, Motion To Correct nor any motions for extension of time were filed by the claimant. We agreed and granted the respondents’ Motion To Dismiss in a ruling announced from the bench on February 24, 1995. See e.g., Burke v. Abacus Transfer & Storage, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 19, 1782 CRB-3-93-7 (Nov. 3, 1994); Garrison v. Brown, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 310, 1706 CRB-2-93-4 (June 17, 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 (Jan. 26, 1994).

Commissioners Linda Blenner Johnson and Amado J. Vargas concur.

1 It should be noted that on or about December 8, 1994 a letter from Atty. Patrick W. Frazier from the Schine & Julianelle law firm was forwarded to the trial commissioner indicating that the firm requested a withdrawal of appearance in the above matter. A copy of that letter was forwarded to the Compensation Review Board. In a letter dated December 28, 1994 the Chairman advised Atty. Frazier that the Compensation Review Board still considered the claimant as represented by the law firm of Schine & Julianelle. BACK TO TEXT

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: January 21, 2005

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1995/2017crb.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