Montini v. Life Touch National School Studios, Inc.

CASE NO. 3818 CRB-04-98-05

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

JUNE 21, 1999

ROBERT MONTINI

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

LIFE TOUCH NATIONAL SCHOOL STUDIOS, INC.

EMPLOYER

and

LIBERTY MUTUAL

INSURER

RESPONDENT-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant, Robert Montini, appeared pro se on appeal. At the trial level the claimant was represented by Gerald Gallant, Esq., Lyons, Tuccio & Gallant, 235 Wakelee Ave., Ansonia, CT 06401.

The Respondent, Life Touch National School Studios, was represented by Steven Howe, Esq., and Robert Brennan, Esq. Law Offices of Robert Brennan, One Century Tower, 265 Church Street, Suite 802, New Haven, CT 06510.

This Petition For Review from the May 11, 1998 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District was heard February 26, 1999 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl, and Commissioners Angelo L. dos Santos and Stephen B. Delaney.

DISMISSAL

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has appealed the May 11, 1998 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District. The claimant timely filed a Petition for Review and a Motion to Extend the Time for Filing Reasons for Appeal. The Motion to Extend the Time for Filing Reasons for Appeal was granted until August 11, 1998. The claimant did not provide the Compensation Review Board with his Reasons For Appeal by the August 11, 1998 deadline. Thereafter, the instant matter was scheduled for hearing by the Compensation Review Board so as to permit the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1.

At the time of the show cause hearing the claimant had not filed any papers with the Compensation Review Board supporting his appeal beyond the Petition For Review and the Motion To Extend the Time for Reasons for Appeal1. The claimant who filed this appeal pro se, personally appeared before the Compensation Review Board and argued why his appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute with due diligence.

It is the position of our courts and this tribunal that pro se advocates are given some latitude as regards procedural irregularities in the prosecution of their claims. Craft v. State of Connecticut/Dept. of Revenue Services, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 431, 3089 CRB-1-95-6 (September 3, 1996); Sargent v. Rybczyk Plumbing & Heating, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 128, 1974 CRB-6-94-2 (January 31, 1995).

As regards this appeal, there is no filing which would reasonably put the appellee on notice as to the issues the claimant sought to have reviewed. Furthermore, as noted above, the claimant’s procedural deficiencies in the filing of his Motion To Correct, effectively denies this tribunal an opportunity to review the trial commissioner’s factual findings. As stated on a number of occasions, without a Motion To Correct we will not disturb the factual findings of the trial commissioner. Mycek v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 3669 CRB-3-97-8 (August 26, 1998); Seltenreich v. Stone & Webster, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 135, 136, 2196 CRB-3-94-10 (Jan. 17, 1996).

Finally, after the show cause hearing, the claimant filed two motions: (1) Motion To Stay Judgment on Show Cause Hearing and (2) Brief in Support of Motion To Stay Judgment. However, the claimant’s Motion To Stay Judgment is grounded on an allegation that the respondent-appellee made reference to a medical report which was only entered as an exhibit for identification. Any such reference or reliance on an exhibit not fully admitted into the record will not be considered. Therefore as the exhibit will not be considered there is no basis for staying the instant judgment.

In conclusion, the claimant-appellant has not provided Reasons for Appeal, a timely Motion To Correct, or reasonably indicated the issues for which he seeks review. We, therefore, for all the reasons cited herein dismiss the instant appeal in accordance with Practice Book § 85-1.

Commissioners Angelo L. dos Santos and Stephen B. Delaney concur.

1 We note that the claimant filed two Motions To Extend Time To File a Motion To Correct with the trial commissioner. The first motion was granted and the time for filing the appellant’s Motion To Correct was extended until June 8, 1998. The claimant then filed a second Motion To Extend the Time to File a Motion To Correct which the trial commissioner denied. BACK TO TEXT