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

Simpson v. Mediplex of Wethersfield

CASE NO. 4210 CRB-6-00-3

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

MAY 4, 2001

AYON SIMPSON

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

MEDIPLEX OF WETHERSFIELD

EMPLOYER

and

CNA INSURANCE COMPANY

INSURER

RESPONDENT-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant appeared on his own behalf.

The respondents were represented by Richard Bartlett, Esq., McGann, Bartlett, & Brown, 281 Hartford Turnpike, Vernon, CT 06066.

This Petition for Review from the March 14, 2000 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Sixth District was heard December 1, 2000 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Robin L. Wilson and Leonard S. Paoletta.

DISMISSAL

JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has filed a timely petition for review from the March 14, 2000 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Sixth District. The claimant has failed to file a motion to correct, reasons of appeal, or a brief.

Accordingly, we dismiss the claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1. See Thomas v. Cash Oil, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 410, 2272 CRB-3-95-1 (Aug. 28, 1996); Divita v. Thames Valley Steel, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 50, 1541 CRB-2-92-10 (Jan. 26, 1994); Milardo v. Shuck Petroleum, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 279, 1559 CRB-8-92-11 (Nov. 22, 1993).

Even if we were to consider the merits of the claimant’s appeal, we would necessarily affirm the trial commissioner’s decision. This is because, based upon the claimant’s presentation at oral argument before this board, the claimant is attempting to retry the facts of this case, which this board may not do. Specifically, the trial commissioner found that the claimant did not meet his burden of proof that he sustained an injury while at work on August 14, 1998. The trial commissioner considered the claimant’s testimony that on that date his supervisor grabbed him violently. The trial commissioner did not find the claimant’s testimony to be credible. In a workers’ compensation case, issues of credibility are the sole province of the trial commissioner. Kish v. Nursing Home & Care, Inc., 47 Conn. App. 620, 627 (1998). This board may not reverse decisions regarding the credibility of witnesses on review, and may not enter its own findings in place of those of the trial commissioner. Id.; Webb v. Pfizer, Inc., 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 69, 70-71, 1859 CRB-5-93-9 (May 12, 1995).

The claimant’s appeal is dismissed.

Commissioners Robin L. Wilson and Leonard S. Paoletta concur.

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: December 21, 2004

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/2001/4210crb.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