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

Somsky v. Bridgeport Hospital

CASE NO. 4336 CRB-4-01-1

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

NOVEMBER 15, 2001

SHARON SOMSKY

CLAIMANT-APPELLEE

v.

BRIDGEPORT HOSPITAL

EMPLOYER

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

and

RISK MANAGEMENT PLANNING GROUP, INC.

ADMINISTRATOR

APPEARANCES:

The claimant’s representative on appeal was William Cotter, Esq., Cotter, Cotter & Mullen, L.L.C., 457 Castle Avenue, Fairfield, CT 06432.

The respondent’s representative on appeal was Francis J. Ficarra, Esq., 1375 Kings Highway East, Suite 425, Fairfield, CT 06430.

This Petition for Review from the January 4, 2001 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District was considered on its papers on July 20, 2001 by a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners James J. Metro and Stephen B. Delaney.

DISMISSAL ORDER

JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The respondent has filed a petition for review from the January 4, 2001 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District. The trier’s order consists of two components: an order that the respondent provide the claimant financial and job-restorative relief pursuant to § 31-290a C.G.S., and an award of attorney’s fees and a penalty in accordance with § 31-303. This board lacks jurisdiction over appeals from decisions made pursuant to § 31-290a; Johnson v. Rainbow Rentals, 4295 CRB-1-00-9 (Jan. 18, 2001); but would have jurisdiction to consider an appeal concerning the amount of an attorney’s fee award under § 31-327. Prioli v. State Library, 64 Conn. App. 301, 309 (2001); Spak v. Shelton Lake Residence, 4372 CRB-4-01-3 (April 26, 2001). However, we have no means of knowing the basis of the respondent’s appeal here, as it has filed no documents in support of its appeal such as Reasons of Appeal, a brief, or even a Motion to Correct. Also, the respondent’s counsel did not attempt to appear at oral argument before this board.

The failure of an appellant to actively pursue its appeal justifies a dismissal of that appeal under Practice Book § 85-1. Shahid v. AAA Nursing Care, 4227 CRB-4-00-4 (March 8, 2001); Hyatt v. Ames Department Stores, Inc., 3533 CRB-6-97-2 (May 14, 1998). All parties have the right to a speedy resolution of their rights and liabilities, and this board will not allow unprosecuted appeals to remain open indefinitely. Accordingly, we dismiss the respondent’s appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence insofar as the appeal was from the award of attorney’s fees, and dismiss it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction insofar as it was from the substance of the trier’s § 31-290a award.

Commissioners James J. Metro and Stephen B. Delaney concur.

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: December 21, 2004

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/2001/4336crb.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