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

Germosen v. Matlaw’s Food Products

CASE NO. 3099 CRB-7-95-5

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

JANUARY 6, 1997

BILMA GERMOSEN

CLAIMANT-APPELLEE

v.

MATLAW’S FOOD PRODUCTS

EMPLOYER

and

CRUM & FOSTER UNDERWRITERS

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

and

SECOND INJURY FUND

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was not represented at oral argument. Notice sent to Charles Sherwood, Esq., 55 Trumbull Street, P. O. Box 9444, New Haven, CT 06534.

The respondents were represented by David Kelly, Esq., Montstream & May, 655 Winding Brook Drive, P. O. Box 1087, Glastonbury, CT 06033-6087.

The Second Injury Fund was represented by J. Sarah Posner, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, 55 Elm St., P. O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120.

This Petition for Review from the May 12, 1995 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Seventh District was heard April 19, 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 Second Injury Fund has petitioned for review from the May 12, 1995 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Seventh District. In that decision, the trial commissioner ordered a transfer of liability to the Fund pursuant to § 31-349 C.G.S. The Fund’s appeal was filed on May 22, 1995. It was followed by a Motion for Extension of Time to File Reasons of Appeal on June 1, 1995, that sought an extension until two weeks after the Fund’s Motion to Correct was ruled on. That motion for extension of time was not ruled on by the CRB. The Fund had also sought an extension of time in which to file the Motion to Correct, which was due by May 26, 1995. See Admin. Reg. § 31-301-4. That request was filed on May 30, 1995, and was also not explicitly ruled upon by the trial commissioner.

The respondents then filed an objection to the Motion to Correct on June 15, 1995. Apparently, the Fund filed a Motion to Correct on June 5, 1995, which the respondents claimed was late. This Motion to Correct is not in the record, however; it is only by reference that we are aware it was filed. Again, no ruling was issued on the Motion to Correct. On November 13, 1995, the respondents sent a letter to the Chairman moving to dismiss the Fund’s appeal, as no Reasons of Appeal had yet been filed. In their brief, the respondents also noted that the Fund had failed to file a timely brief according to the CRB’s briefing schedule. The Fund contended at oral argument that no brief needed to be filed, as the issues before the panel were the respondents’ motion to dismiss and this board’s request that the Fund show cause why its appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to Practice Book § 4055. We do not agree that no brief was necessary here; the failure to brief these issues prejudiced the other parties, and gave this board even less information to work with in considering whether to dismiss the appeal.

This board acknowledges that the absence of any rulings on the Fund’s motions for extension of time or its Motion to Correct makes it difficult for us to hold the appellant to precise deadlines with respect to its Reasons of Appeal. However, § 4055 allows us to dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to prosecute with proper diligence. Even giving the Fund the benefit of the doubt on some of those issues, it has not been diligent in prosecuting this appeal. The Motion to Correct is not part of the appellate record, nor is it in the district file. The Fund has still filed no Reasons of Appeal, nor did it file a brief. Thus, we have no idea what the appeal even concerns. More importantly, the Fund allowed the confusion surrounding this case to go on through the date of oral argument, without demonstrating any effort to obtain rulings on its motions or to augment the appellate file. This lack of concern with the disposition of this appeal and disregard for our briefing deadlines merits dismissal of the Fund’s petition for review. See, e.g., Richardson v. H.B. Sanson, Inc., 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 107, 108, 590 CRD-1-87 (Feb. 23, 1989).

The appeal is hereby dismissed.

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

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: June 13, 2005

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1997/3099crb.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