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

Melendez v. Warner’s

CASE NO. 3772 CRB-04-98-02

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

APRIL 23, 1999

CARLOS MELENDEZ

CLAIMANT-APPELLEE

v.

WARNER’S

EMPLOYER

and

HOME INSURANCE CO.

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS

APPEARANCES:

The claimant did not appear at oral argument. Notice sent to Richard R. Burmeister, Esq., Law Offices of Frank Riccio, 923 E. Main Street, P.O. Box 491, Bridgeport, CT 06601.

The respondents did not appear at oral argument. Notice sent to Matthias J. DeAngelo, Esq., Cotter, Cotter, & Sohon, P.C., P.O. Box 5660 Bayview Station, Bridgeport, CT 06610.

This Petition for Review from the February 6, 1998 Finding Re: 31-288(c) Penalties of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District was heard October 9, 1998 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Donald H. Doyle, Jr. and Michael S. Miles.

OPINION

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The respondents have filed a petition for review from the February 6, 1998 Finding Re: 31-288(c) Penalties of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District. In that order, the trial commissioner found that the respondents had delayed the completion of the proceedings and ordered a fine of $250 pursuant to § 31-288(b) C.G.S. The respondents argue on appeal that a finding of undue delay was not warranted in this matter because the trier improperly ordered them to begin cross-examining a witness, and because their refusal to do so did not in fact delay proceedings “by even a millisecond.” Brief, p. 4.

The proceedings underlying this case have yet to reach a final adjudication, as formal hearings have not yet been completed. Although an employer or insurer that has been fined under § 31-288(b) may appeal that penalty in accordance with § 31-301(a), it is also imperative that a practical review of the trier’s decision be possible. In this case, this board will be unable to review this ruling until the formal hearings are over, and the reasonableness of the respondents’ conduct can be evaluated. Therefore, this appeal is currently premature.

The case is hereby remanded to the Fourth District for further proceedings.

Commissioners Donald H. Doyle, Jr. and Michael S. Miles concur.

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: April 8, 2005

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1999/3772crb.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