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

Salvatore v. Salter’s Express Co., Inc.

CASE NO. 2184 CRB-5-94-10

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

MAY 9, 1996

JAMES SALVATORE

CLAIMANT-APPELLEE

v.

SALTER’S EXPRESS CO., INC.

EMPLOYER

INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

and

SECOND INJURY FUND

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT

APPEARANCES:

The claimant did not appear at oral argument.

Respondent employer and insurer were represented by Joanne Belisle, Esq., Montstream & May, 655 Winding Brook Dr., Glastonbury CT 06033.

The respondent Second Injury Fund was represented by Taka Iwashita, Esq., and Michael Belzer, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, 55 Elm St., P.O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120.

This Petition for Review from the October 13, 1994 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Fifth District was heard June 23, 1995 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Roberta Smith Tracy and Michael S. Miles.

OPINION

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The respondent Second Injury Fund has petitioned for review from the October 13, 1994 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Fifth District. The Second Injury Fund (hereinafter “Fund”) contends in its reasons of appeal that the trial commissioner improperly ordered the transfer of the claim pursuant to § 31-349 C.G.S. The respondents have filed a timely motion to dismiss the Fund’s appeal.

Pursuant to the Compensation Review Board Calendar issued on March 8, 1995, briefs of appellants were required to be filed on or before May 1, 1995. The Fund has not filed a legal brief with this board. On May 17, 1994, in response to the respondents’ motion to dismiss for failure to file a brief, the Fund did not file a legal brief, but rather requested that this board refer to the legal arguments in its proposed findings which it had filed at the trial level. As the Fund has failed to file a timely brief, we will dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4055. See Lennon v. Genest Subaru Motors, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 63, 1589 CRB-5-92-12 (Dec. 28, 1994); Divita v. Thames Valley Steel, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 50, 1541 CRB-2-92-10 (Jan. 26, 1994); Vigneri v. Utility Industrial Company, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 402, 1433 CRB-2-92-6 (Sept. 9, 1994) (where appellant fails to file a brief, issues on appeal are deemed abandoned).

Accordingly, we will not consider the merits of the Fund’s appeal in this case.

The Fund’s appeal is dismissed.

Commissioners Roberta Smith Tracy and Michael S. Miles concur.

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: May 11, 2005

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1996/2184cra.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