CASE NO. 5610 CRB-4-10-12
COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
JULY 14, 2011
CITY OF BRIDGEPORT BOARD OF EDUCATION
BERKLEY ADMINISTRATORS OF CONNECTICUT
The claimant did not attend oral argument and was unrepresented at the appellate level. In the proceedings before the trial commissioner the claimant was represented by Wayne Sharnick, Esq., of Rubens & Lazinger, 295 Congress Street, P.O. Box 1555, Bridgeport, CT 06601.
The respondents were represented by Marie Gallo-Hall, Esq., Montstream & May, LLP, Salmon Brook Corporate Park, 655 Winding Brook Drive, Glastonbury, CT 06033-6087.
This Petition for Review from the November 29, 2010 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District was heard June 24, 2011 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Christine L. Engel and Clifton E. Thompson.
JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has appealed from the November 29, 2010 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District. In his Finding the trial commissioner dismissed the claimant’s claim for benefits relating to incidents alleged to have occurred April 2, 2008 and June 17, 20081 while she was in the employ of the respondent. The claimant contended that as a result of incidents occurring on the above dates she sustained a disc herniation.
The claimant, whose work for the respondent was janitorial in nature, claimed that she did not have any significant problems with her back prior to the April 2008 and June 2008 incidents. However, there was evidence presented to the trial commissioner from which he could have concluded that the claimant’s history of her back symptomatology was in conflict with other medical evidence.
We note that the claimant was represented by legal counsel in the proceedings before the trial commissioner.2 The claimant filed a timely Petition for Review and remained unrepresented during the course of proceedings before the board. The claimant has not filed Reasons of Appeal, a Motion to Correct, brief or any other documents in her prosecution of this appeal. Nor did the claimant appear at oral argument. We, therefore, are unaware of any legal grounds supporting her appeal from the November 29, 2010 Finding and Dismissal.
Conversely, the respondent-appellee has filed a Motion to Dismiss the instant appeal along with a Memorandum of Law supporting its Motion to Dismiss and its Appellee brief. Chief among the grounds in support of dismissal is the claimant’s failure to articulate the grounds for the appeal leaving respondent incapable of presenting a defense to the appeal. Gioia v. United Parcel Service, 5488 CRB-3-09-8 (August 9, 2010); Reels v. Economy Gutters, 5511 CRB-2-09-11 (July 20, 2010); Ostrowski v. Guida-Siebert Dairy Co., 5374 CRB-6-08-9 (April 28, 2010).
The instant matter was calendared for the Compensation Review Board’s June 24, 2011 docket for oral argument. The issues before the panel included the respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and to provide the claimant with an opportunity to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed on the basis of the claimant’s failure to prosecute with proper diligence. See Practice Book § 85-1. At oral argument the respondent appeared and the panel granted the respondent-appellee’s Motion to Dismiss. Additionally we note that the claimant has failed to prosecute this appeal with proper diligence and our dismissal reflects this basis as well.
The above memorializes the June 24, 2011 bench ruling of this panel wherein we dismissed the claimant’s appeal.
Commissioners Christine L. Engel and Clifton E. Thompson concur.
1 It appears that the trial commissioner’s November 29, 2010 Finding and Dismissal contains a scrivener’s error. The correct date of injury for the injury alleged to have occurred in June, 2008 should have been June 17, 2008. BACK TO TEXT
2 The claimant was represented by Attorney Wayne Sharnick. BACK TO TEXT