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

Basurto v. State of Connecticut/Boneski Treatment Center

CASE NO. 3115 CRB-2-95-7

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

DECEMBER 24, 1996

EDUARDO BASURTO

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT/BONESKI TREATMENT CENTER

EMPLOYER

and

ALEXSIS, INC.

SELF-INSURED ADMINISTRATOR

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was not represented at oral argument. Notice sent to C. George Kanabis, Esq., Kanabis & Houle, 20 Channing St., P. O. Box 2022, New London, CT 06320.

The respondent was represented by Lisa Weiss, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, 55 Elm St., P. O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120.

This Petition for Review from the July 3, 1995 Finding and Order of the Commissioner acting for the Second District was heard June 14, 1996 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners George A. Waldron and Robin L. Wilson.

DISMISSAL ORDER

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has petitioned for review from the July 3, 1995 Finding and Order of the Commissioner acting for the Second District. In that decision, the commissioner noted that the claimant’s temporary total disability benefits were being sent directly to his attorney for deposit into an interest bearing escrow account, due to questions surrounding the claimant’s competency. The attorney subsequently sought to withdraw from representing the claimant. He did not disclose what money the claimant had already received or whether he had started the escrow account. The commissioner was also concerned that the claimant was still incapable of handling his own finances. She accordingly ordered the attorney to continue receiving the claimant’s checks for placement in an escrow account, and ordered him to provide an accounting of all benefits paid at an upcoming formal proceeding. An appeal was subsequently filed from that decision on behalf of both the claimant and his attorney.

The respondent has since filed a Motion to Dismiss the claimant’s appeal pursuant to Practice Book § 4184A, which authorizes a court to dismiss an appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence. Although the claimant did file an Objection to the commissioner’s order along with his appeal that provides some inkling as to his grounds for appeal, no formal Reasons for Appeal were filed as required by Admin. Reg. § 31-301-2. Moreover, the claimant did not file a brief in accordance with the briefing schedule of this board, and neither he nor his attorney appeared at oral argument. As this board has received nothing from the appellant since the appeal was filed, we grant the respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. See Nichols v. United Technologies Corp./Sikorsky Aircraft, 2239 CRB-4-94-12 (decided June 21, 1996); Esquillin v. Pinto Lavado Enterprises, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 148, 1914 CRB-2-93-12 (Feb. 1, 1995).

Commissioners George A. Waldron and Robin L. Wilson concur.

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: May 11, 2005

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1996/3115crb.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