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

Rhoads v. Garbo Lobster Co., Inc. et al.

CASE NO. 4890 CRB-1-04-12

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

DECEMBER 20, 2006

SCOTT E. RHOADS

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

GARBO LOBSTER CO., INC.

EMPLOYER

and

STAR INSURANCE c/o MANAGED BENEFIT SERVICES

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

and

GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY

EMPLOYER

and

CRAWFORD & COMPANY

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant who appears pro se in this appeal did not appear at oral argument. In proceedings before the trial commissioner the claimant was represented by Gerard Rucci, Esq., 1 Union Plaza, Second Floor, New London, CT 06320.

The respondents Garbo Lobster Co., Inc. and Managed Benefit Services were represented by Robert S. Bystrowski, Esq., and Robert K. Jahn, Esq., of Morrison Mahoney LLP One Constitution Plaza,10th Floor, Hartford, CT 06103. However, the respondents did not appear at oral argument.

The respondents Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company and Crawford & Company were represented by Jennifer Hock, Esq., of McGann, Bartlett & Brown, LLC, 111 Founders Plaza, Suite 1201, East Hartford, CT 06108.

This Petition for Review filed from the November 22, 2004, Finding and Award/Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the First District was heard December 15, 2006 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Donald H. Doyle, Jr., and Nancy E. Salerno.

Ruling Re: Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss

JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The instant matter was heard by the Compensation Review Board at oral argument held December 15, 2006. The matter was calendared for oral argument for the purpose, inter alia, of permitting the appellant an opportunity to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute with due diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1 and for the consideration of Motions to Dismiss filed by the respondents.1

We note that the claimant was represented in the proceedings before the trial commissioner by Attorney Gerard Rucci.2 Attorney Rucci filed a Motion to Withdraw Appearance and the claimant filed a Notice of Appearance in lieu of Attorney Rucci. Thereafter the claimant proceeded pro se.

The instant appeal was taken from the November 22, 2004 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the First District. At the request of the appellant a Motion to Stay the proceedings was granted from April 11, 2005 until December 31, 2005. Oral argument was scheduled to be held August 25, 2006, however, on August 4, 2006 the claimant filed a Motion to Postpone Oral Argument which we granted. The matter was then scheduled for oral argument to be heard December 15, 2006.

On November 30, 2006 the appellant again requested a postponement of oral argument. That request was denied December 1, 2006 following receipt of the respondents Crawford and Company’s Objection to Request for Postponement [of Oral Argument] filed December 1, 2006.

Our records indicate that no Reasons for Appeal, Motion to Correct or Brief were filed by the appellant until December 14, 2006. This matter has been pending before this board for more than two years. During the pendency of this appeal there have been periods where the claimant was unable to prosecute his appeal due to his incarceration. That period was acknowledged and the time for prosecuting his appeal extended accordingly. However, the claimant has not been incarcerated during the entire period that this appeal has been pending. Thus, even during periods when claimant could have filed documents in support of his appeal none were filed.

At oral argument held December 15, 2006, respondents Crawford and Company referenced their numerous Motions to Dismiss and the number of extensions of time granted the appellant in the course of this appeal. Additionally, the respondents renewed their Motions to Dismiss.3 After reviewing respondents’ argument in support of their Motions to Dismiss, the claimant’s appeal was dismissed with prejudice on the basis of the claimant-appellant’s failure to prosecute the appeal with due diligence.

Commissioners Donald H. Doyle, Jr., and Nancy E. Salerno concur.

1 The record reflects counsel for the respondents Garbo Lobster, Star Insurance Company and Managed Benefit Services filed Motions to Dismiss on March 9, 2005, March 16, 2005 and July 12, 1006. Respondents, Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, and Crawford and Company, filed Motions to Dismiss on March 4, 2005, March 14, 2005, January 30, 2006 and July 12, 2006. BACK TO TEXT

2 Attorney Rucci’s filings in the prosecution of this appeal were limited to the Petition for Review and a Motion for Extension of Time to File Reasons of Appeal. BACK TO TEXT

3 At oral argument respondents counsel for Crawford and Company represented that counsel for respondents Garbo Lobster, Star Insurance Company and Managed Benefit Services, although unable to be present joined in their oral argument. BACK TO TEXT

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: December 22, 2006

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/2006/4890crb.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