CASE NO. 4490 CRB-4-02-2
COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DECEMBER 12, 2005
CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP
The claimant filed this appeal in his capacity as a pro-se litigant. However, the claimant did not appear at oral argument.
The respondents were represented by Richard L. Aiken, Jr., Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton and Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Boulevard, Glastonbury, CT 06033.
This Petition for Review from the September 21, 2001 Finding and Award and Denial of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District was heard November 18, 2005 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Stephen B. Delaney and Michelle D. Truglia.
JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The claimant filed this appeal from the September 21, 2001 Finding and Award and Denial of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District. In that Finding and Award the trial commissioner found the claimant sustained a number of compensable injuries during the course of his employment with the respondents. The commissioner found the claimant was totally disabled. The claimant filed this appeal.
The procedural history in this appeal is as follows. The commissioner issued the Finding and Award on September 21, 2001. Thereafter the claimant filed a Petition For Review, and documents which given the claimant’s status as a pro se we considered to be a Motion To Submit Additional Evidence and Motion For Extension of Time to File Reasons of Appeal. The time for filing claimant’s Reasons of Appeal was extended until May 20, 2002. On May 20, 2002 another document was filed, the text of which identified the document as a Motion To Submit Additional Evidence. On May 29, 2002 the respondents filed a Motion To Dismiss on the basis that the claimant did not file Reasons of Appeal by May 20, 2002. On July 25, 2002 the respondents again filed a Motion To Dismiss including the grounds asserted in their May 29, 2002 and added the claimant’s failure to comply with the briefing schedule dated June 7, 2002 which required the appellant to file his brief by July 19, 2002. On September 11, 2002 a Postponement of Oral Argument scheduled for September 20, 2002 was granted at the request of the claimant. The matter was re-scheduled and postponed from the Compensation Review Board’s docket for the following dates; May 30, 2003, October 31, 2003, July 30, 2004. All postponements were at the request of the claimant.
This appeal was then scheduled to be heard on November 18, 2005. The Compensation Review Board received no response from the claimant following the issuing of the hearing notice pertaining to the November 18, 2005 CRB hearing. On September 22, 2005 the respondents filed another Motion to Dismiss the grounds of which may be summarized as the claimant’s failure to prosecute the appeal with due diligence. No brief was filed by the claimant, nor did the claimant appear at oral argument which was scheduled for November 18, 2005. We believe this tribunal has granted the claimant great leniency in consideration of his personal difficulties and his pro se status. However, the matter cannot be continued ad infinitum nor can we wait for the claimant to provide the necessary materials which may support his appeal. We therefore dismissed the appeal with prejudice in a bench ruling at the time of oral argument and memorialize that ruling herein.
Commissioners Stephen B. Delaney and Michelle D. Truglia concur.