CASE NO. 5657 CRB-7-11-6
COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
JUNE 20, 2012
DONALD F. BIAGI, JR.
SECOND INJURY FUND
The claimant was represented by Robert F. Carter, Esq., Carter & Civitello, Attorneys at Law, Woodbridge Office Park, 1 Bradley Road, Suite 301, Woodbridge, CT 06525.
The respondent-appellant was represented by John J. Morgan, Esq., Barr & Morgan, 22 Fifth Street, Stamford, CT 06905, who did not file a brief or appear at oral argument.
The Second Injury Fund was represented by Catherine M. Rawson, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120, who did not participate in the appeal, file a brief or appear at oral argument.
This Petition for Review from the May 24, 2011 Memorandum of Decision of the Commissioner acting for the Seventh District was heard December 16, 2011 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commissioners Scott A. Barton, Amado J. Vargas and Stephen B. Delaney.
SCOTT A. BARTON, COMMISSIONER. The respondent in this matter commenced an appeal from a May 24, 2011 Memorandum of Decision rendered by the trial commissioner in this matter articulating her rationale for levying sanctions. This appeal was commenced via a June 7, 2011 Petition for Review. There is some dispute as to the precise facts and dates, but the record reflects an effort by the appellant to withdraw the appeal subsequent to the filing of a Motion to Dismiss by the claimant/appellee on September 22, 2011. The appellee has also filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees in this matter, asserting that the appeal was frivolous.
Counsel for the appellee attended oral argument before our tribunal on December 12, 2011. Counsel for the appellant filed an objection to the motion for attorney’s fees, filed a brief and represented that the matter could be taken on the papers.
Subsequent to this hearing, we take administrative notice that the Appellate Court issued its opinion in the underlying matter. See Gamez-Reyes v. Biagi, 136 Conn. App. 258 (2012). In this decision, the Appellate Court specifically affirmed the sanctions levied by the trial commissioner against the respondent. See Footnote, ¶ 4 to the Appellate Court opinion, wherein it states the appellant withdrew its appeal of said sanctions. The order of sanctions was affirmed by the Appellate Court. Id.
In light of the Appellate Court’s conclusive ruling herein on the issue of sanctions by the trial commissioner, we believe there is no pending dispute that we are jurisdictionally empowered to address. The issue herein has been rendered moot by a court of appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is dismissed pursuant to Practice Book § 66-8.
Commissioners Amado J. Vargas and Stephen B. Delaney concur in this opinion.