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

Soden v. Custom Bottle of Connecticut, Inc. et al.

CASE NO. 3849 CRB-05-98-06

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

MARCH 3, 1999

MICHAEL SODEN

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

CUSTOM BOTTLE OF CONNECTICUT, INC.

and

YO FARMS

EMPLOYERS

and

ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

and

AETNA LIFE & CASUALTY

INSURERS

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

At the trial level the claimant was represented by James Brennan, Esq., Brennan, Santoro & Isaac, P.O. Box 70, Waterbury, CT 06702-0070. Claimant filed the appeal on his own behalf and failed to appear at oral argument.

The respondents, Atlantic Mutual were represented by Michael Finn, Esq., and Marianne Monty, Esq., Montstream & May, 655 Winding Brook Drive, P. O. Box 1087, Glastonbury, CT 06033-6087.

The respondents, Aetna Life & Casualty were represented by Margaret Corrigan, Esq., and Richard Aiken, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton & Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Boulevard, Glastonbury, CT 06033.

This Petition For Review from the June 18, 1998 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Fifth District was heard January 22, 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.

RULING RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant, acting pro se filed a Petition For Review from the Commissioner acting for the Fifth District’s June 18, 1998 Finding and Dismissal. While the Petition For Review was filed timely, the claimant did not file any Reasons for Appeal, nor any other papers in support of his appeal. The respondents, Atlantic Mutual, filed a Motion To Dismiss the appeal on the basis that the claimant had not pursued the appeal with due diligence.

Thereafter, this tribunal calendared the matter for a hearing pursuant to Prac. Book § 85-1 to show cause why the claimant’s appeal should not be dismissed. The claimant did not appear at oral argument. In light of the claimant’s failure to file any other documents in furtherance of his appeal, the Respondents-Appellees Motion to Dismiss is granted. See also; Reynolds v. Atlantic Foods, 3676 CRB-7-97-9 (October 20, 1998); Danise v. JMJB, Inc., d/b/a The Brake Shop Mechanic, 3681 CRB-7-97-9 (October 19, 1998); Hyatt v. Ames Department Stores, Inc., 3533 CRB-6-97-2 (May 14, 1998).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: April 8, 2005

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1999/3849crb.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