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

CRB Case Annotations re: Section 31-301

Appeal procedure.

PREVIOUS Section | NEXT Section | MENU for CRB Annotations

THESE ANNOTATIONS ARE PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

Full texts of opinions, statutes and court decisions should be consulted and all citations and references fully researched by the reader.

The Annotations to Compensation Review Board Opinions are presented “as is” and the Commission makes no warranties as to the suitability of this information for any given purpose.
Please note also that Annotations change periodically due to several factors including, but not limited to, Appellate and Supreme Court decisions issued in workers’ compensation cases.

** Multiple DRG related cases not included.

Jodlowski v. Stanley Works, 5976 CRB-6-15-1 (August 12, 2015).

Claimant, who sustained an earlier compensable injury, sought approval for lumbar spine surgery. Trial commissioner found experts who opined against surgery more persuasive than claimant’s treater who opined in favor. On appeal, claimant sought to introduce additional evidence he did not submit at formal hearing. CRB determined this was an inappropriate effort at piecemeal litigation, and denied the request. See also, Jodlowski, § 31-294d; § 31-294f; § 31-298; § 31-301-9.

Lazzari v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 5978 CRB-8-14-12 (July 23, 2015).

Claimant filed “Motion for Contempt” asserting respondents had violated trial commissioner’s discovery orders issued at informal hearing. At informal hearing trial commissioner denied motion “w/o prejudice”. Claimant appealed. CRB affirmed decision. Motions denied without prejudice are interlocutory decisions that should not be appealed to the CRB, in accord with precedent in Dow v. Lowe’s, 5956 CRB-2-14-7 (March 9, 2015) and Quinones v. RW Thompson Company, Inc., 5792 CRB-1-12-10 (January 16, 2014). See also, Lazzari, § 31-298.

Morgillo v. Ginnetti Trucking, 6009 CRB-3-15-3 (May 22, 2015).

Appeal from Sec. 31-288(b)(1) Order resulting from an informal hearing remanded. Due process requires an evidentiary hearing. Also see earlier order resulting from same issue, Morgillo v. Ginnetti Trucking, 5941 CRB-3-14-6 (July 15, 2014).

Teixeira v. Home Depot, 6002 CRB-4-15-4 (May 12, 2015).

Board does not have jurisdiction on appeal from wrongful termination Finding pursuant to Sec. 31-290a. Appeal must be filed directly with the Appellate Court.

Camp v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 5936 CRB-6-14-5 (April 24, 2015), appeal pending AC 37932.

Argument on appeal that claimant should be able to present additional evidence to contest surveillance was rejected by CRB. Claimant should have anticipated issues as to causation would be raised and presented available evidence prior to record closing. See also, Camp, § 31-275(1); § 31-294c; § 31-298; § 31-301 Factual findings.

Dow v. Lowe’s, 5956 CRB-2-14-7 (March 9, 2015).

CRB held that respondents’ appeal filed beyond the time permitted for filing appeals to the CRB deprived the board of jurisdiction over appeal. Additionally, the board discussed the merits of bringing an interlocutory appeal from a trial commissioner’s order pertaining to discovery in which the trier required the respondents to schedule a medical examination within a certain period of time, imposing a per se requirement that a formal hearing be held prior to the issuing of any discovery order.

Hatcher v. State of Connecticut/UConn Health Center, 5903 CRB-1-13-12 (January 22, 2015).

The CRB need not consider documents submitted by the appellant to advance an argument raised on appeal where the documents were not part of, or identified as part of, the evidentiary record. The board is not required to cull through the evidentiary record and ascertain what portions of that record support an appellants’ argument. Additionally the board does not engage in a de novo review. The failure of the appellant to file a Motion to Correct limited the board’s review of the trier’s findings. See also, Hatcher, § 31-275(1); § 31-278; § 31-294f; § 31-297; § 31-298; and § 31-301 Factual findings.

Heyer v. City Carting Holding Company, 5896 CRB-4-13-11 (October 14, 2014).

Claimant was denied bid for temporary total disability and further medical treatment and filed appeal from Finding and Award/Dismissal. Claimant failed to file Reasons for Appeal or a brief, or attend the CRB hearing. Respondents filed Motion to Dismiss for failure to prosecute the appeal, and CRB granted motion, citing Van Fleet v. Balfour Beatty Construction, 5801 CRB-4-12-11 (March 17, 2014) and Lopez v. A. Anastasio Fence Co., 5101 CRB-4-06-6 (May 23, 2007). CRB also noted that based on sole post-award document, a Motion to Correct, claimant was essentially trying to retry the case on appeal and did not present claim of legal error.

Wiblyi v. McDonald’s Corporation, 5883 CRB-1-13-10 (October 3, 2014), appeal pending, AC 37303/37304.

Claimant appealed trial commissioner’s denial of Motion to Preclude brought eleven years after original notice of injury, arguing that trier’s decision to deny preclusion due to laches and prejudice constituted an abuse of discretion. Respondents cross-appealed on basis that claimant failed to sustain his burden of proof that notice of claim was properly served on employer pursuant to §§ 31-294c(b) and 31-321 C.G.S. CRB held that trier was prohibited as matter of law from denying statutory remedy of preclusion on basis of equitable doctrine such as laches and remanded claimant’s appeal for additional findings relative to whether statutory requirements for preclusion had been satisfied. CRB also remanded cross-appeal for additional findings after concluding that record contained ambiguities regarding circumstances of service of notice of claim which did not fully support conclusions drawn by trier. See also, Wiblyi, § 31-294c; § 31-321.

Lazzari v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 5960 CRB-8-14-9 (September 24, 2014).

Claimant acting on his own behalf file an appeal from the trial commissioner’s answer to claimant’s Memoranda. No record exists at the trial level. Due process requires an evidentiary hearing so a record can be created. Appeal remanded for a formal hearing or other appropriate action.

Dauti v. Lighting Services, Inc., 5874 CRB-5-13-8 (September 5, 2014).

Dependent spouse appealed from decision denying benefits from death of her husband. Original appeal documents cited date of a Finding and Dismissal which had been appealed years earlier. Respondent’s filed Motion to Dismiss. CRB denied Motion for the rationale stated in Vitoria v. Professional Employment & Temps, 5217 CRB-2-07-4 (April 4, 2008); error herein an obvious scrivener’s error and respondents not prejudiced as later filings clearly identified issues on appeal. See also, Dauti, § 31-275(1); § 31-301 Factual findings.

Morgillo v. Gennetti Trucking, 5941 CRB-3-14-6 (July 15, 2014).

Due process requires an evidentiary hearing where a record can be created. Therefore, an appeal from a Sec. 31-288(b)(1) order absent a hearing creating a record must be remanded for a Formal Hearing.

Brown v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital, 5853 CRB-2-13-5 (April 21, 2014).

CRB dismissed appeal as it was filed some 10 months after the commissioner issued his decision. Appellant claimed that the 20 day appeal period did not provide adequate time to file her appeal given that her attorney did not handle appeals. The appeal period is set by statute § 31-301(a) and jurisdictional in nature.

Van Fleet v. Balfour Beatty Construction, 5801 CRB-4-12-11 (March 17, 2014).

Claimant asserted various dental injuries were related to compensable injury. Trial commissioner found claimant’s evidence on issue unpersuasive. Claimant filed appeal, but did not file a brief and respondents moved to dismiss appeal for procedural deficiencies. CRB granted dismissal, citing Marino v. Cenveo/Craftman Litho, Inc., 5448 CRB-5-09-3 (March 16, 2010), but indicated it would have affirmed trial commissioner on appeal as to substantive issues. See also, Van Fleet, § 31-294d; § 31-301 Factual findings; § 31-315.

Ferree v. West Hartford, 5834 CRB-2-13-4 (February 20, 2014).

Respondent appealed from decision of commissioner to move proceedings from 6th District to 2nd District at claimant’s request. CRB decided appeal was unripe; but also noted authority for appeal was precedent applying law prior to 1991 statutory revision centralizing the Workers’ Compensation system under the Chairman’s authority. See also, Ferree, § 31-297; § 31-280.

Jeremy M. Reid v. Sheri A. Speer d/b/a Speer Enterprises, LLC, 5818 CRB-2-13-1 (January 28, 2014).

CRB affirmed trial commissioner who granted Motion to Prelcude and found an employer-employee relationship existed in this matter. See also, Reid, § 31-275(9); § 31-275(10); § 31-278; § 31-298; § 31-294c; § 31-301 Factual findings.

Quinones v. RW Thompson Company, Inc., 5792 CRB-1-12-10 (January 16, 2014).

Claimant had filed Motion to Preclude in claim. Parties had argued merits of matter before the late Commissioner Cliff Thompson, and after Commissioner Thompson’s death had asked new commissioner to render decision on existing record. New trial commissioner sought to examine claimant prior to ruling on Motion. Claimant objected to adding to record and appealed to CRB. CRB ruled that as the underlying Motion to Preclude had not been ruled on the appeal was unripe, citing Gorelick v. Montenaro, 94 Conn. App. 14 (2006) and Bailey v. Stripling Auto Sales, Inc., 4516 CRB-2-02-4 (May 8, 2003). Matter remanded to rule on pending Motion to Preclude. See also, Quinones, § 31-298.

Levarge v. Electric Boat Corp., 5747 CRB-1-12-4 (January 13, 2014).

Respondent that fails to appeal from an award cannot benefit from the appellate actions of other parties. See also, Levarge, § 31-299b.

Rodriguez v. State/Department of Developmental Services, 5893 CRB-5-13-10 (November 22, 2013).

Sec. 31-308a Order issued subsequent to an informal hearing. Since no record exists board remanded appeal as due process requires an evidentiary hearing where a record can be created.

Estate of Robert C. Haburey v. Winchester, 5763 CRB-6-12-6 (June 14, 2013).

Trier concluded that claimant died of sepsis following exposure to Legionella at employer’s sewer treatment plant. CRB affirmed trier’s compensability findings on basis of medical record despite expert’s lack of “absolute certainty” regarding etiology of claimant’s sepsis, and declined to address whether Legionnaire’s Disease constituted occupational disease as contemplated by § 31-275(15) C.G.S. CRB rejected respondents’ claim that trier lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to deficient notice of claim, noting that prior trial commissioner’s Finding and Award regarding sufficiency of notice adequately reflected analysis set forth in Berry v. State/Dept. of Public Safety, 5162 CRB-3-06-11 (December 20, 2007). CRB found respondents’ allegations of due process deprivation without merit and also denied claimant’s Motion to Dismiss predicated on respondents’ compliance with instant Finding and Award, noting that dismissal would vitiate appeal provisions codified at § 31-301 C.G.S., et. seq. CRB affirmed trier’s denial of Motion to Correct. See also, Estate of Haburey, § 31-275(1), § 31-275(15), § 31-294c, § 31-301. Factual Findings, § 31-301-04, § 31-306.

Wickerd v. City of Groton, 5836 CRB-2-13-5 (June 10, 2013).

Appeal rendered moot where trial commissioner vacates imposition of fine pursuant to Sec. 31-288(b)(1).

Putney v. Town of Guilford, 5732 CRB-3-12-2 (February 5, 2013).

Claimant sought to continue medical treatment. Trial commissioner found further treatment unwarranted. CRB affirmed trial commissioner. On appeal, respondent argued claimant failed to file a timely Reasons for Appeal. CRB did not dismiss appeal, respondent not prejudiced by manner claimant presented appeal. See also, Putney, § 31-294c; § 31-301 Factual findings; § 31-307.

Thelors v. Jewish Home For The Elderly, 5803 CRB-4-12-11 (December 11, 2012).

Sec. 31-294d Order issued as a result of an informal hearing. Appeal from ruling remanded as due process requires an evidentiary hearing wherein a record can be created.

Passalugo v. Guida-Seibert Dairy Company, 5796 CRB-6-12-11 (November 27, 2012).

Form 36 approved as a result of an informal hearing. Due process requires an evidentiary hearing wherein a record can be created. Remanded for a formal hearing or other appropriate action.

Kakabadze v. JC Penney Catalog Distribution Center, 5707 CRB-8-11-12 (November 26, 2012).

Claimant argued that trial commissioner did not sufficiently compensate him for permanent partial disability to finger injuries. Respondent filed Motion to Dismiss arguing the claimant filed late Reasons for Appeal. CRB denied motion; not persuaded that respondents were prejudiced by late filing. See also, Kakabadze, § 31-308(b).

Lopez v. EC Tree, LLC, 5698 CRB-8-11-11 (October 11, 2012).

Claimant injured on job. Employer argued claimant an independent contractor and argued therefore lack of workers’ comp insurance not material. Trial commissioner found employer/employee relationship and found employer lacked workers’ compensation insurance. Respondent challenged this finding on appeal; arguing policy not properly cancelled. CRB dismissed appeal for failure to prosecute; similar to Lopez v. A. Anastasio Fence Company, 5101 CRB-4-06-6 (May 23, 2007) and Angol v. In Your Neighborhood Construction, LLC et al, 5125 CRB-1-06-8 (March 16, 2010) appellant failed to file a brief outlining legal error. See also, Lopez, § 31-321; § 31-284; § 31-348.

Palmieri v. Simkins Industries, Inc., 5694 CRB-3-11-11 (October 10, 2012).

Claimant filed claim for hearing loss alleging it was due to repetitive trauma at workplace. Trial commissioner found claim compensable. Respondent appealed, arguing that medical evidence supported their position claimant ceased being exposed to injurious noise more than one year prior to filing his claim; thus making claim untimely. CRB affirmed trial commissioner. Claimant and treating physician testified to claimant being exposed to injurious noise from power tool use up to date he left respondent’s employ; trial commissioner could reasonably rely on this evidence to find claim jurisdictionally valid. CRB found case more akin to Marandino v. Prometheus Pharmacy, 294 Conn. 564 (2010) than DiNuzzo v. Dan Perkins Chevrolet Geo. Inc., 294 Conn. 132 (2009). See also, Palmieri, § 31-294c; § 31-275(16).

Herbert v. State/Department of Correction, 5547 CRB-8-10-4 (September 13, 2012).

Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss this appeal challenging late filing of Reasons of Appeal. CRB denied motion. Claimant sought and received numerous extensions of time to file pleadings. Respondent not denied ability to file cogent defense due to claimant’s delays.

Miller v. Thyssen Krupp Elevator Corporation, 5669 CRB-7-11-7 (August 29, 2012).

Trial commissioner’s denial of appellant’s motion to correct on the basis that it was not timely filed may have been a correct ruling but for the wrong reason. However, even if the legal basis was incorrect, the standard of review for the denial of the motion to correct remains as with any review of a denial of a Motion To Correct. On review the CRB held that none of the corrections sought by the appellant were either undisputed or would compel a different outcome if granted. See also, Miller, § 31-275(1); § 31-301 Factual findings.

Henry v. City of Ansonia, 5674 CRB-4-11-8 (August 8, 2012).

Claimant suffered cardiac event while at work in 2005 and was treated thereafter. Respondent filed Form 43. Claimant later filed Firm 30C in 2008 alleging hypertension, heart disease and sinus tachycardia. Respondent did not file a timely Form 43 to this claim. Claimant later filed Motion to Preclude which trial commissioner granted on issues of heart disease and sinus tachycardia. Commissioner also determined that hypertension case lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Respondent appealed granting of Motion to Preclude, CRB affirmed commissioner; fact-driven decision herein. Claimant appealed arguing they had no notice jurisdictional issue was going to be decided. CRB sustained appeal; record did not reflect parties on notice jurisdictional issue would be decided. Case remanded for further proceedings. See also, Henry, § 31-294c; § 31-298; § 31-275(16).

West v. Stratford, 5759 CRB-4-12-6 (June 21, 2012).

Appeal from order resulting from an informal hearing remanded. Due process requires an evidentiary hearing wherein a record can be created in order for board to properly consider an appeal.

Gamez-Reyes v. Biagi, 5657 CRB 7-11-6 (June 20, 2012).

Respondent appealed from trial commissioner’s articulation of basis for levying sanctions, then withdrew appeal. Claimant filed motion for attorney’s fees asserting appeal was frivolous. Subsequent to CRB hearing on issue Appellate Court affirmed award of sanctions in matter. CRB determined due to Appellate Court decision further proceedings were moot and dismissed appeal.

Gonzalez v. Premier Limousine of Hartford, 5635 CRB 4-11-3 (April 17, 2012).

Claimant did not file a Petition for Review or a Motion to Correct after trial commissioner made original Finding. Claimant argued later appeal permissible as a “piggyback” from the respondent’s appeal. CRB disagreed. Based on Supreme Court’s rationale in Stec v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 299 Conn. 346 (2010) party must appeal a CRB ruling once it obtains standing to appeal. Public Act 07-31 extended time to file appeal for those who filed timely interlocutory motions to point where those motions are decided. See also, Gonzalez, § 31-300; § 31-294d; § 31-301 Factual findings; § 31-301-4.

Turrell v. State/DMHAS, 5640 CRB-8-11-3 (March 21, 2012).

Respondent argued claimant’s appeal was filed in untimely manner. Claimant stated statute permitted appeal to be filed within twenty days of decision on Motion to Correct. CRB held statute permitted such appeals. See also, Turrell, § 31-294d; § 31-298; § 31-301 Factual findings.

Garvey v. Atlas Scenic Studios, Inc., 5493 CRB 4-09-9 (February 14, 2012).

Respondent insurer claimed appeal by Second Injury Fund was jurisdictionally defective due to being filed late. Second Injury Fund argued statute tolled appeal period until after Motion to Correct resolved. CRB found terms of statute supported timeliness of appeal. See also, Garvey, § 31-310; § 31-315.

Lamothe v. Citibank, N.A., 5550 CRB-8-10-5 (October 12, 2011).

Claimant appealed Finding and Award in which trial commissioner declined to enter written award of compensability following respondents’ proffer of voluntary agreement. Claimant also appealed trial’s failure to sanction respondents for unreasonable contest. Respondents moved for dismissal of claim on grounds of untimely filing of Reasons of Appeal. CRB denied motion for dismissal noting that respondents had filed motion for dismissal after ten-day period following expiration of claimant’s deadline and had failed to show prejudice because of claimant’s late filing. CRB affirmed trial commissioner on all grounds. Issuance of approved voluntary agreement does not confer upon trier obligation to find compensability; nor does it constitute a judicial admission. Claimant had opportunity to challenge terms of voluntary agreement in formal proceedings. CRB also held that claimant’s medical history, lack of medical causation report, and circumstances surrounding claimant’s injury, including claimant’s failure to inform her supervisors of the workplace incident, provided adequate support for trier’s determination that respondents did not engage in an unreasonable contest of claim. Trier could reasonably infer that respondents’ failure to produce a witness following a trial commissioner’s order likewise did not constitute unreasonable delay in light of respondents’ initial request for a protective order, claimant counsel’s failure to coordinate deposition scheduling with respondents’ counsel, and witness’s inability to appear because of illness. Respondents’ failure to answer discovery request relative to attendance reports did not compel trier to draw an adverse inference, particularly as respondents’ defense was not solely predicated on claimant’s attendance on date of injury. See also, Lamothe, § 31-278; § 31-296; § 31-300; § 31-301-2; § 31-301-9.

Chimblo v. Connecticut Light Power, 5417 CRB-7-09-1 (December 30, 2009).

Post oral argument respondent filed a Motion To Suspend Trial Court Proceedings in this matter. CRB denied motion as the trial commissioner’s post judgment proceedings were for the purpose of determining the specific reimbursement amount owed to the claimant. The proceedings which the respondent sought to suspend were in the nature of the relief it sought in its appeal before this board. Given the commission’s ongoing jurisdiction and the purpose of the Act, the trier’s post judgment actions were not inappropriate. See also, Chimblo, § 31-294d, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Damon v. VNS of CT/Masonicare, 5413 CRB-4-08-12 (December 15, 2009).

Claimant did not file a timely Reasons for Appeal or a Motion to Correct the trial commissioner’s Findings; Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss under Practice Book § 85-1 asserting that the claimant’s appeal was untimely. CRB denied motion; no evidence that the respondents were prejudiced by these procedural deficiencies Vitoria v. Professional Employment & Temps, 5217 CRB-2-07-4 (April 4, 2008). See also Damon, § 31- 294f; § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-307, § 31-301-4.

Smith v. Federal Express Corp., 5405 CRB- 7-08-12 December 1, 2009).

Claimant suffered compensable injury, received temporary total disability benefits and respondents later filed Form 36 to terminate benefits; asserting claimant had work capacity. CRB reversed commissioner on effective date of Form 36; precedent was benefits could not be terminated retroactive to date Form is filed , see Torres v. Southern Connecticut Truck & Tire Center, 3144 CRB-3-95-8 (February 5, 1997). Prior decision in Smith v. Federal Express Corp., 4242 CRB-7-00-5 (August 22, 2001). See also, Smith, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-307.

Harrison v. New Country Motor Cars of Greenwich, Inc. a/k/a New Country Porsche of Greenwich, a/k/a New Country Motor Car group, a/k/a/ New country Audi of Greenwich, 5329 CRB7-08-3 (December 1, 2009).

Appeal dismissed where pro se claimant failed to file a brief or any documentation supporting her claims of error and did not appear at oral argument.

Camp v. State/Capital Community Technical College, 5401 CRB-1-08-11 (November 17, 2009).

See also, Camp, § 31-294d, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-307, § 31-307b.

Ghazal v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 5397 CRB-8-08-11 (November 17, 2009).

See also, Ghazal, § 31-288, § 31-294d, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-301-9. Additional evidence, § 31-307.

Claros v. Keystone Pipeline Services, Inc., 5399 CRB-1-08-11 (October 28, 2009).

Respondents moved to dismiss appeal for lack of due diligence, pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1. CRB granted motion. Claimant failed to file timely pleadings and “brief” (which was statement transcribed by CRB staff member) was inadequate to perform proper appellate review. Notwithstanding claimant’s procedural missteps, the trial commissioner’s decision would still be upheld on substantive grounds. See, Claros, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Archer v. Goodwill Industries, 5498 CRB-1-09-9 (October 14, 2009).

An appeal from a Sec. 31-294d order issued subsequent to an informal hearing is premature. Where no record exists appeal must be remanded for a formal hearing or other appropriate action.

Mehan v. Stamford, 5389 CRB-7-08-10 ( October 14, 2009).

CRB found no error when trial commissioner did not seek briefs on impact of Harpaz v. Laidlaw Transit, 286 Conn. 102 (2008) decision; any ambiguity has since been resolved by the Donahue v. Veridiem, Inc. 291 Conn. 537 (2009) decision. See also, Mehan, § 31-294c, § 31-308(b), § 31-321.

Carroll v. Flattery’s Landscaping, Inc., 5385 CRB-8-08-10 (September 24, 2009).

Claimant asserted respondent’s counsel acted improperly. In absence of documentation CRB could not act on claimant’s subjective opinions. CRB also could not reverse trial commissioner’s denial of claimant’s Motion to Correct; claimant did not present alternative findings of fact. See also, Carroll, § 31-294f, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Doustou v. State/Dept. Mental Health & Addiction Services, 5384 CRB-8-08-10. (September 23, 2009).

See, Doustou, § 31-327.

Nicotera v. Hartford, 5381 CRB-8-08-10 (September 2, 2009).

See also, Nicotera, § 31-294d, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-307.

Davies v. Coca Cola Bottling Company, 5491 CRB-6-09-8 (August 28, 2009).

Appeal from Sec. 31-308a Order issued subsequent to an informal hearing remanded for further proceedings. Board cannot consider an appeal where no record exists.

Seiler v. Ranco Collision LLC, 5377 CRB-1-08-09 (August 27, 2009).

Claimant argued that trial commissioner failed to apply estoppel against respondent. Respondent had informed police and Labor department that claimant was out of workers’ comp due to injury. CRB decided statement was not an admission of liability, merely acknowledgment of status. Claimant offered no evidence parties had acted in reliance on this statement and could not assert rights held by others, contra. Union Carbide Corp. v. Danbury, 257 Conn. 865 (2001) and Strobel v. Strobel, 64 Conn. App. 614, 620 (2001). Trial Commissioner judge of whether evidence is probative, denied Motion to Correct on issue, Dzienkiewicz v. State/Department of Correction, 5211 CRB-8-07-3 (March 18, 2008) aff’d, 291 Conn. 214 (2009). Claimant also argued Secondino rule should be applied against respondent for not producing supportive witnesses; CRB had held to contrary in Evans v. Shelton, 3108 CRB-4-95-6 (May 2, 1997). Finally claimant argued that affidavit supporting claimant’s version of events should have been admitted. CRB found this a discretionary matter for the trial commissioner LaMontagne v. F & F Concrete Corporation, 5198 CRB-4-07-2 (February 25, 2008). See also, Seiler, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Sobon v. Andrzej Oszmian d/b/a Andy’s Carpentry, 5368 CRB-8-08-8 (August 12, 2009).

Claimant sustained injury working for roofing subcontractor at new home construction site. Trial commissioner found injury compensable and assigned liability to subcontractor. Subcontractor did not have workers’ compensation insurance policy in force on date of injury and matter transferred to Second Injury Fund. Fund subsequently brought principal employer claims against both the architect hired by property owner’s husband to build cabinets and assist in supervising construction and the property owner’s husband who was working on-site as a mason. Trial commissioner dismissed claim against architect, concluded mason was acting as principal employer, and ordered him to reimburse Second Injury Fund. Respondent mason appealed, arguing Workers’ Compensation Commission lacked jurisdiction as neither roofing nor framing were a part or process of his regular trade or business as a mason and therefore statutory requirements set out by principal employer statute were not satisfied. CRB affirmed, noting trier’s findings were consistent with precedent and testimony of parties adequately supported his conclusions that architect was functioning as a part-time project manager while actual supervisory responsibility for and control of construction site rested with mason, who was essentially acting as a general contractor. See also Sobon, § 31-291, § 31-355(b).

Santiago v. Laidlaw Transportation, Inc., 5379 CRB-5-08-9 (July 27, 2009).

Claimant suffered both compensable and later noncompensable back injuries. Respondents argued that when expert witness testified both injuries were substantial factors in claimant’s condition trial commissioner erred by not applying Hatt v. Burlington Coat Factory, 263 Conn. 279 (2003). CRB upheld trial commissioner. Hatt does not apply when subsequent injury is not a compensable “second injury”; traditional standards of proximate cause apply. Stevens v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 5215 CRB-4-07-4 (March 26, 2008) and Dixon v. United Illuminating Co., 57 Conn. App. 51 (2000) require that claimant prove only the compensable injury was a “substantial contributing factor” to need for surgery; does not require proof compensable injury was the sole factor. . . See also Santiago, § 31-275(23), § 31-294d, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-349.

Alvarez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 5378 CRB-5-08-9 (July 27, 2009).

Claimant suffered prior injury in former employer and executed stipulation for lump sum that did not specify level of disability. Claimant later injured worked for Wal-Mart. Respondent argued that claimant had previously been paid for portion of present disability and appealed award. CRB upheld trial commissioner. Prior stipulation did not set disability level. Any effort to presume some portion of sum paid on stipulation was against disability would be speculative; case distinguished from Johnson v. Manchester Bus Service, Inc., 3472 CRB -01-96-11 (April 1, 1998). See also Alvarez, § 31-294f, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-308(b), § 31-349.

Schleidt v. Eldredge Carpentry LLC, 5373 CRB-8-08-8 (July 14, 2009).

Claimant injured on construction project, asserted he was employee of respondent at time of injury. Claimant determined to be independent contractor by trial commissioner. On appeal, claimant asserted trial commissioner’s evaluation of disability was error due to consideration of irrelevant facts. CRB upheld trial commissioner. Evidence of such issues was presented at the Formal Hearing. Even if findings were irrelevant; CRB found their inclusion at worst harmless error. See Peters v. Corporate Air, Inc., 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 91, 1679 CRB-5-93-3 (May 19, 1995). See also Schleidt, § 31-275(9), § 31-275(10).

Graham v. Olson Wood Associates, Inc., et al., 5474 CRB-8-09-6 (July 13, 2009).

Respondent CIGA’s appeal from the trial commissioner’s ruling on a motion is premature. No record exists in order for the board to properly consider an appeal. Remanded for a formal hearing or other appropriate action.

Drown v. Rochette Quality Home Improvement, LLC, 5369 CRB 8-08-8 (June 29, 2009).

Claimant filed Reasons for Appeal but did not file Motion to Correct or brief. Respondents argued case should be dismissed as per Practice Book § 85-1. CRB agreed but found claimant’s appeal would be rejected on the merits. Claimant appeared at oral argument and argued probative evidence was not submitted at the formal hearing; in absence of Motion to Submit Additional Evidence this issue could not be considered. See Drown, § 31-275(1) C.G.S., § 31-301-9.

Lugo v. DRS Fermont, 5469 CRB-4-09-6 (June 19, 2009).

Appeal from trial commissioner’s Sec. 31-294d order issued subsequent to an informal hearing is premature. No record exists. Appeal remanded for a formal hearing or other appropriate action.

Bruce v. Advanced Auto Service, Inc., 5468 CRB-3-09-5 (June 19, 2009).

Appeal from Sec. 31-288 order issued for failure to appear at informal hearing is premature. No record exists. Appeal remanded for a formal hearing or other appropriate action.

McInnis v. Shelter Workz, 5299 CRB-3-07-11 (June 11, 2009).

Claimant suffered compensable back injury and returned to work. He claimed he was unable to perform light duty work and was later terminated. Trial commissioner ordered total disability from time of injury. Respondent appealed. CRB upheld. Termination from employment not an absolute bar to benefits, see Levey v. Farrel Corp., 3649 CRB-4-97-7 (July 30, 1998). Applying for unemployment benefits also not a bar, trial commissioner could conclude claimant was willing to work but not able. Latham v. Caraustar Industries, 5241 CRB-2-07-6 (June 25, 2008). See also, McInnis, § 31-294d, § 31-301. Factual findings. § 31-307.

Pratt v. Town Fair Tire Centers, Inc., 5462 CRB-7-09-5 (June 3, 2009).

Appeal from Sec. 31-308a order where no record exists is premature. Matter remanded for a formal hearing or other appropriate action.

Jacobs v. James Dwy d/b/a New Home Exteriors, 5327 CRB-5-08-3 (May 28, 2009).

Trial commissioner found respondent who attended hearing liable as claimant’s employer; reached no finding as to liability of respondent who failed to attend proceeding. CRB remanded for new evidentiary hearing as to potential liability of other putative employer. See also, Jacobs, § 31-275(9), § 31-275(10), § 31-284(a), § 31-291, § 31-355(a), § 31-355(b).

McLain v. New London, 5459 CRB-8-09-5 (May 13, 2009).

Appeal filed absent a written decision on a claim and a record established. Remanded for further proceedings.

Rodriguez v. ED Construction a/k/a E.D. Construction, Inc., 5316 CRB-7-08-1 (May 11, 2009).

Respondents filed Motion to Dismiss arguing claimant’s appeal pleadings procedurally inadequate. CRB denied motion. Claimant’s brief sufficiently apprised respondent of issues before tribunal; no prejudice existed. Roussel v. Village Gate of Farmington, 4918 CRB-6-05-2 (February 28, 2006).

Bryant v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 5455 CRB-7-09-4 (May 8, 2009).

Appeal from ruling denying motion to compel production remanded. Until there is a written decision on the merits of any evidentiary dispute there is no final judgment for the board to consider.

Fear v. Land O Lakes/Egg Express, 5433 CRB-2-09-2 (May 4, 2009).

Respondents appeal from the trial commissioner’s order for medical treatment remanded for a formal hearing. No record exists for board to properly consider.

Almeida v. State/Department of Correction, 5430 CRB-1-09-2 (May 4, 2009).

Respondent employer’s appeal from trial commissioner’s Sec. 31-288(b) penalty issued subsequent to an informal hearing cannot be considered absent a record. Remanded.

Britton v. Labcorp, 5454 CRB-4-09-4 (April 28, 2009).

Respondent’s appeal filed from a Sec. 31-288(b) penalty issued subsequent to an informal hearing is premature. Appeal remanded for a Formal Hearing or other appropriate action.

Mohamed v. Domino’s Pizza, 5352 CRB-6-08-6 (April 22, 2009).

Respondents sought to void an executed stipulation and obtained an ex parte order voiding the stipulation. Claimant sought formal hearing and did not appeal order within statutory time limit. Respondent argued claimant now barred from further relief. CRB upheld trial commissioner who denied dismissal and remanded for new hearing. Due process requires contested hearing. Ex parte orders do not have record and cannot be appealed to CRB; matters must be resolved at formal hearings. Respondent’s argument that “plain meaning” statute (§ 1-2z C.G.S.) required appeal unpersuasive; appeal would have been futile and such a requirement would have caused an absurd result. See also Mohamed, § 31-297, § 31-298, § 31-315.

Walsh v. Omni Medical Service, 5323 CRB-3-08-2 (April 22, 2009).

Respondent failed to submit reasons for appeal in its brief. CRB declined to dismiss the appeal pursuant to PB 85-1; appellant brief provided sufficient and timely discussions of issues in case. See also Walsh, § 31-275(1) C.G.S.

Burns v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc., 5343 CRB-7-08-5 (March 23, 2009).

See Burns § 31-278, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Mallozzi v. Stop & Shop Companies, Inc., 5337 CRB-2-08-4 (March 4, 2009).

Claimant sought to have CRB consider evidence not presented to the trial commissioner. CRB denied, citing Torres v. New England Masonry Company, 5289 CRB-5-07-10 (January 6, 2009). See also, Mallozzi, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Houghton v. Andover, 5317 CRB-2-08-1 (January 27, 2009).

Appellant failed to preserve issue for review when it withdrew its appeal of Houghton v. Andover, 4949 CRB-2-05-6 (May 18, 2006) [Houghton I] from Appellate Court docket. Appealing from commissioner’s order for payment consistent with CRB’s opinion in Houghton I was merely a collateral attack on the merits. See also, Houghton, § 31-349.

Wiggins v. Middletown, 5300 CRB-8-07-12 (January 15, 2009).

See Wiggins, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Torres v. New England Masonry, 5289 CRB-5-07-10 (January 6, 2009).

Claimant argued that his bilateral avascular necrosis in his hips was the sequelae of compensable injuries. Trial commissioner found testimony of the commissioner’s examiner and the surgeon who performed a hip replacement, who opined necrosis was idiopathic, more persuasive and credible than claimant’s treating physicians. Claimant appealed dismissal. CRB upheld. Trial commissioner had sufficient probative evidence to justify his decision. In addition, trial commissioner could not consider inability of parties to reach global settlement of claims; as per the Schenkel cases other accepted injuries remain “open” if no stipulation is reached. See also, Torres, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-301-9.

Cascone v. Phoenix of Fairfield County, 5344 CRB-7-08-5 (December 24, 2008).

Appeal filed some 50 days after trial commissioner rendered decision, untimely as not filed within § 31-301(a) appeal period.

Ialacci v. Hartford Medical Group, 5306 CRB-1-07-12 (December 2, 2008).

Claimant asserted back injury was sustained at work. Trial commissioner did not find claimant credible and denied claim. Claimant appealed arguing his medical evidence was uncontradicted. CRB upheld trial commissioner. Case is indistinguishable from Do v. Danaher Tool Group, 5029 CRB-6-05-12 (November 28, 2006); commissioner may disregard uncontroverted expert testimony if he finds it based on an unreliable witness. Trial commissioner cited witnesses who refuted material elements of claimant’s narrative; hence lack of reliance was reasonable. See also, Ialacci, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Schenkel v. Richard Chevrolet, Inc., 5302 CRB-8-07-12 (November 21, 2008).

Respondents asserted errors from notice and conduct of hearings; asserting they had not been apprised issues considered at prior formal hearings would be part of the record. CRB dismissed appeal. Record shows parties fully informed at commencement of formal hearing about issues and scope of the record. Respondents also argued concepts of claim preclusion prevented additional relief to claimant. Binding precedent in Valletta v. State/DMR-Southbury Training School, 4543 CRB-5-02-6 (March 26, 2003) and Bailey v. Stripling Auto Sales, Inc. d/b/a Willimantic Dodge/Nissan, 4516 CRB-2-02-4 (May 8, 2003) stands for opposite conclusion. Schenkel; § 31-300, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-307.

Potvin v. Lincoln Service & Equipment, 5258 CRB-3-07-8 (November 12, 2008).

See also, Potvin, § 31-288, § 31-300. Attorney’s Fees.

DaSilva v. Danbury Board of Education, 5263 CRB-7-07-8 (November 5, 2008).

See also § 31-275(1), § 31-301. Factual findings.

Grant v. Siemens Westinghouse Power Co., 5292 CRB-4-07-11 (October 28, 2008).

Claimant sought to admit additional evidence that she claimed her attorney had failed to present to the trial commissioner. CRB declined motion; claimant failed to establish in accordance with Mankus v. Mankus 107 Conn. App. 585 (2008) or Diaz v. Jaime Pineda a/k/a Jamie Pineda d/b/a J.P. Landscaping Company, 5244 CRB-7-07-7 (July 8, 2008) there was a good reasons this evidence was not presented at the formal hearing. See also, Grant, § 31-307, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-308(a), § 31-301-9.

Hirth v. MG Electric, 5301 CRB-6-07-11 (October 17, 2008).

Claimant had surgery on wrist and claimed it was due to carpal tunnel injury sustained at previous job. Respondent argued obligation should also be attributed to subsequent employer. Commissioner’ determined treating physician who ascribed injury to earlier job more persuasive. Respondent appealed. CRB upheld trial commissioner, as case was indistinguishable from LaMontagne v. F & F Concrete Corporation, 5198 CRB-4-07-2 (February 25, 2008). See also, Hirth, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Davis v. State/Dept. of Children & Families, 5179 CRB-8-07-1 (September 17, 2008), appeal dismissed A.C. 30397 (July 14, 2009).

On its face claimant’s appeal petition was late under § 31-301(a). Appellant given opportunity to show cause why appeal should not be dismissed. At oral argument panel determined that appellant should be afforded an evidentiary hearing so as to demonstrate that appellant’s failure to receive notice of the trial commissioner’s decision was through no fault of his own per Schreck v. Stamford, 250 Conn. 592, 598 (1999). Appellant failed to persuade panel and appeal dismissed.

Smith v. Amerbelle Corporation, 5375 CRB-1-08-9 (September 16, 2008).

An appeal filed subsequent to an informal hearing is premature as no record exists. Remanded to the trial commissioner for a formal hearing or other appropriate action.

Yelunin v. Royal Ride Transportation, 5274 CRB-1-07-9 (September 4, 2008).

Trial commissioner concluded insurance policy cancelled prior to date of injury. After original findings, Second Injury Find sought and received Amended Findings and Orders seeking confirmation decision comported with standards in Velez v. LSP Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Domino’s Pizza, 5105 CRB-1-06-6 (September 26, 2007). Fund challenged appropriateness of such amended order; CRB upheld trial commissioner, Fund cannot prevail when it appeals receiving relief it had specifically sought. See also, Yelunin, § 31-348.

Sweet v. Coca Cola Bottling Company, 5262 CRB-1-07-8 (August 27, 2008).

Claimant asserted disc herniation was due to lifting pallets at work. Respondents challenged testimony as inconsistent. Trial commissioner found treating physician persuasive and found injury compensable, but also stated he thought injury was more likely “repetitive trauma”. Respondents appealed. CRB upheld. While record may not support theory of repetitive trauma injury rather than a single incident, claim was timely under either theory of recovery. See also, Sweet, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-294c, § 31-275(16).

Vitti v. Richards Conditioning Corp., 5247 CRB-7-07-7 (August 21, 2008).

Pipe fitter suffered heart attack at construction site. Trial commissioner credited expert witness who testified cause of heart attack was unrelated to work. Claimant sought numerous corrections to findings; only some were granted and did not change outcome of case. CRB upheld on appeal; commissioner had factual basis to uphold prior findings he did not grant corrections on. Argument commissioner did not understand evidence rejected on appeal, commissioner’s decisions on whether to grant corrections not unreasonable. See also, Vitti, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-275(1), § 31-301-4.

Zolla v. John Cheeseman Trucking, 5261 CRB-5-07-8 (August 4, 2008), appeal dismissed, A.C. 30251 (March 5, 2009).

Claimant was interstate truck driver employed by Ohio firm who suffered heart attack on the job in New Jersey. Respondents failed to file disclaimer within statutory timeline to contest claim filed in Connecticut. Respondents challenged jurisdiction of Connecticut Commission asserting that Ohio had exclusive jurisdiction over the injury due to contractual agreement and the Ohio Worker’s Compensation Bureau had issued a decision denying the claim; thus barring a Connecticut award pursuant to res judicata and Full Faith and Credit. Trial commissioner found jurisdiction for claimant and found Ohio proceedings subsequent to statutory preclusion under Connecticut law. CRB upheld. As Ohio proceedings had not reached a decision prior to statutory preclusion affixing in Connecticut, proceedings in other forum had not litigated issues and did not have force of judgment entitled to enforcement in CT forum under either Full Faith and Credit or res judicata. See also, Zolla, § 31-278, § 31-290, § 31-294c, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Chiriboga v. Daniel Stein, 5245 CRB-3-07-7 (July 29, 2008).

Second Injury Fund’s failure to timely file an appeal challenging award of 31-308(a) benefits to an illegal alien precluded review by CRB when issue was raised in an appeal taken following § 31-355 order.. See also, Chiriboga, § 31-308(a), § 31-355(b).

Maskowsky v. Fed Ex Ground, 5200 CRB-3-07-2 (July 28, 2008).

See also Maskowsky, § 31-275(9), § 31-275 (10).

Kuhar v. Frank Mercede & Sons, Inc., 5250 CRB-7-07-7 (July 11, 2008).

Claimant sought attorney’s fees and interest as a result of receiving fewer than ten benefit checks each less than two weeks late. CRB upheld trial commissioner’s decision to deny request. See also Kuhar, § 31-288, § 31-300.

Ellis v. State/Department of Developmental Services, 5242 CRB-5-07-7 (July 8, 2008).

Claimant appealed from Finding and Award ordering her to pay her former attorney his fees and costs associated with the full and final global settlement of several workers’ compensation claims several years before for which claimant was paid directly by the state claims administrator. Claimant filed untimely Petition for Review, failed to file Reasons of Appeal, and filed untimely brief. Claimant also failed to attend CRB hearing or seek a postponement. CRB dismissed appeal on the basis of appellant’s failure to comply with statutory twenty-day time limit pursuant to § 31 301(a), and noted that even if the Petition for Review had been timely, CRB would have dismissed the appeal pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1 because the appellant failed to prosecute appeal with proper diligence. See also Ellis, § 31-300.

McCarthy v. East Haven, 5174 CRB-3-06-12 (May 22, 2008).

CRB declined to reserve to the Appellate Court the question, “What is the applicable statute of non-claim in heart and hypertension claims under Sec. 7-433c?” See McCarthy, § 7-433c.

Keeney v. Laidlaw Transportation, 5199 CRB-2-07-2 (May 21, 2008).

Claimant sought temporary total disability benefits asserting original work related back injury had been aggravated. Trial Commissioner awarded benefits and respondents appealed, asserting that the commissioner improperly refused to admit an “MRI aging study” offered by respondents. CRB upheld trial commissioner. Issue governed by LaMontagne v. F & F Concrete Coroporation, 5198 CRB-4-07-2 (February 25, 2008);trial commissioner has broad discretion as to whether to admit evidence; document in question had not been generated by a treating physician or a physician who had examined the claimant. See also Keeney, § 31-301. Factual findings, §31-298, §31-307.

Gooden v. Edward Craven, 5260 CRB-2-07-8 (April 29, 2008).

Respondent-employer filed an untimely Petition for Review from a Finding and Award granting the claimant temporary total benefits, temporary partial benefits, and additional medical treatment. Respondent-employer did not file reasons of appeal or a brief, attend the CRB hearing, or seek a postponement. CRB dismissed the appeal on the basis of the appellant’s failure to comply with the statutory twenty-day time limit pursuant to § 31 301(a), and noted that even if the Petition for Review had been timely, CRB would have dismissed the appeal pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1 because the appellant failed to prosecute his appeal with due diligence.

Franklin v. State/Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Services, 5224 CRB-8-07-4 (April 11, 2008).

Claimant sought to admit evidence of job searches during the appeal after record had closed. CRB held evidence was untimely as per holding of Pantanella v. Enfield Ford, Inc., 65 Conn. App. 46, 57-58 (2001). See also, Franklin, § 31-307.

Vitoria v. Professional Employment & Temps, 5217 CRB-2-07-4 (April 4, 2008).

Respondents filed motion under Practice Book Sec. 85-1 to dismiss appeal on grounds claimant did not file a timely Motion to Correct or Reasons of Appeal. CRB denied motion. Claimant filed a timely Petition for Review and submitted a brief which outlined his grounds of appeal; respondents offer no indicia of prejudice from claimant’s actions. See also, Vitoria, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Antos v. Jaroslaw Korwek d/b/a Jerry’s Home Improvement, 5225 CRB-7-07-5 (April 4, 2008).

Trial commissioner denied respondent’s Motion to Dismiss asserting deficient claim form deprived Commission of jurisdiction. CRB upheld trial commissioner. Failure to name L.L.C. in Form 30C did not prejudice respondent when it was served on firm’s principal who filed timely disclaimer. See also, Antos, § 31-294c.

Stevens v. Raymark Industries, 5215 CRB-4-07-4 (March 26, 2008), appeal dismissed, A.C. 29795 (June 26, 2008).

Dependent widow awarded benefits after husband’s death as trial commissioner concluded prior compensable injury substantial factor in his death. Insurer for decedent’s prior employer denied liability; asserting “law of the case” was respondent was self –insured and that final employer should also be liable. CRB upheld trial commissioner. “Law of the Case” doctrine inapplicable when there was no identifiable interlocutory ruling on issue of whether employer had been self-insured. On other hand, collateral estoppel applies to compensability of original claim, which was fully litigated. Failure to file a claim against a party is a jurisdictional bar to recovery, Chambers v. Electric Boat Co., 283 Conn. 840 (2007), and no claim was filed against the subsequent employer. See also, Stevens, § 31-299b, § 31-306, § 31-355(b).

Byczajka v. Stamford, 5023 CRB-7-05-11 (March 26, 2008).

Claimant’s petition for review was filed one day after expiration of twenty-day appeal period prescribed by statute. Notice had been sent to claimant’s counsel of record, who received it three calendar days after its issuance by commissioner, and immediately contacted claimant’s conservatrix informing her that claim had been dismissed and that he was not willing to file appeal on claimant’s behalf. No extension of statute of limitations was available under Kudlacz v. Lindberg Heat Treating Co., 250 Conn. 581 (1999), as there was no evidence claimant was deprived of meaningful opportunity to file timely appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Kocur v. IQ Technology, LLC, 5210 CRB-1-07-3 (March 3, 2008).

Claimant and respondents raised numerous procedural issues on appeal. Claimant asserted that appeal was untimely; CRB rejected this argument since parties had agreed to bifurcate proceedings to consider jurisdictional issues. Second Injury Fund asserted trial commissioner improperly relied on statements pro se employer made as an advocate. CRB relied on Reeve v. Eleven Ives Street, LLC, 5146 CRB-7-06-10 (November 5, 2007) to hold strict compliance with rules of evidence not required; error, if any was harmless since other evidence supported trial commissioner. Respondent-employer wanted matter reopened to consider additional evidence; CRB upheld denial of this motion as evidence did not compel different result and could have been obtained prior to closure of record. See also, Kocur, § 31-275(9), § 31-275(10).

LaMontagne v. F & F Concrete Corporation, 5198 CRB-4-07-2 (February 25, 2008).

Claimant asserted need for spinal fusion surgery due to compensable injury while employed by respondent F & F Concrete. Respondent argued some percentage of causation due to subsequent injury sustained by working for Haynes Construction and tried to introduce evidence on issue. Trial commissioner ruled evidence inadmissible and denied Motion to Correct on this issue. CRB upheld trial commissioner on appeal. She has discretion as to what evidence is admissible and other parties raised timely objections that they were prejudiced were this letter to be admitted owing to its late production. See also, LaMontagne, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-301-4, § 31-307.

Galovich v. Federal Express Corp., 5307 CRB-2-07-12 (January 3, 2008).

Appeal from trial commissioner’s § 31-290a finding dismissed. Appeal must be pursued via Appellate Court as board lacks jurisdiction.

DiBlase v. Logistec of Connecticut, Inc., 5305 CRB-3-07-11 (January 3, 2008).

Appeal from trial commissioner’s ruling absent a hearing creating a record remanded.

McFarland v. State/Dept. of Developmental Services, 5176 CRB-5-06-12 (December 21, 2007), aff’d in part; rev’d in part, 115 Conn. App. 306 (2009).

Claimant prevailed at formal hearing and respondents appealed. Claimant moved to dismiss appeal challenging respondent’s compliance with appeal procedures. CRB denied motion. No evidence the claimant was prejudiced by the manner respondents appealed. See Roussel v. Village Gate of Farmington, 4918 CRB-6-05-2 (February 28, 2006). See also, McFarland, § 31-300, § 31-288, § 31-307, § 31-310.

Berry v. State/Dept. of Public Safety, 5162 CRB-3-06-11 (December 20, 2007).

Trooper died at home. Claim later filed in name of “Robert Berry, Deceased.” Respondents later challenged jurisdiction, asserting claim was inadequate as per Kuehl v. Z-Loda Systems Engineering, 265 Conn. 525 (2003). Trial commissioner dismissed claim on jurisdictional grounds. CRB reversed on appeal. Trial commissioner’s Findings were untenable as per Moutinho v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 278 Conn. 660, 666 (2006); Kuehl only applies when there is no claim; in this case factual scenario clearly put respondent on notice as to § 31-306 C.G.S. claim. Case of Tardy v. Abington Constructors, Inc., 4105 CRB-2-99-8 (October 30, 2000), aff’d, 71 Conn. App. 140 (2002) on point; strict compliance not required as long as respondent is placed on notice. See also, Berry, § 31-306, § 31-294c, § 31-301-4.

Brennan v. James V. Ursini Co., 5133 CRB-8-06-9 (December 20, 2007).

CRB concluded trial commissioner satisfied remand order to articulate what payments made by respondent following date determined as maximum medical improvement should be attributed as.

Tyson v. Best Buy Auto, LLC, 5295 CRB-3-07-11 (December 10, 2007).

Appeal from order imposing a penalty for late payment pursuant to § 31-303 remanded for formal hearing. No record exists allowing board to properly consider appeal. Related case below.

Barrett v. Best Buy Auto, LLC, 5294 CRB-3-07-11 (December 10, 2007).

Appeal from order imposing a penalty for late payment pursuant to § 31-303 remanded for formal hearing. No record exists allowing board to properly consider appeal. Related case above.

Christy v. Ken’s Beverage, Incorporated, 5157 CRB-8-06-11 (December 7, 2007).

Claimant awarded interest on delayed award but not attorney’s fees. On appeal, she sought to obtain admission of late evidence and award of attorney’s fees for alleged defective disclaimer from respondent.. Respondent prevailed on substantive issues, thus weighing against award of attorney’s fees and late evidence barred as it could have been submitted earlier. While trial commissioner could rely on respondent’s doctor to determine a discogram was presently unjustified, claimant could revisit the issue later, Serluca v. Stone & Webster, 5118 CRB-8-06-8 (July 13, 2007) See also, Christy, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-307, § 31-300, § 31-294c.

Dechio v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 5155 CRB-4-06-11 (November 28, 2007), aff’d, 114 Conn. App. 58 (2009), cert. granted, 293 Conn. 902 (2009).

CRB held Second Injury Fund’s appeal from order issued pursuant to § 31-355(b) untimely insofar as it sought to challenge findings and conclusions made in the underlying Finding and Award issued previously. Furthermore CRB found Fund’s arguments as to lack of subject matter jurisdiction unavailing. Fund argued underlying claim that resulted in a Finding and Award issued in 1988 was untimely. CRB concluded public policy endorsing finality of judgments outweighed Fund’s interest as a mere guarantor of payments. Appellate Court noted motion to dismiss the fund’s appeal was timely filed, there the CRB properly dismissed the appeal. Differs from Stec v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 114 Conn. App. 81 (2009).

Rizzo v. Stanley Works/Hand Tools Division, 5106 CRB-6-06-6 (November 21, 2007).

Following issuance of a Finding and Award, respondent filed Motion to Correct asserting medical evidence supported an earlier date of maximum medical improvement and justified ratification of a Form 36 approved at an informal hearing. Trial commissioner approved Motion to Correct and claimant appealed. CRB upheld trial commissioner; as he had legal authority as per Wooten v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney, 3674 CRB-6-97-9 (May 7, 1999) to grant correction and testimony could reasonably support the requested corrections. See also, Rizzo, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-307.

Rispoli v. The Home Depot, Inc., 5287 CRB-8-07-10 (November 5, 2007).

Appeal from trial commissioner’s order pursuant to § 31-294 authorizing a medical exam remanded for further proceedings. Absent a record the board cannot properly consider an appeal.

Reeve v. Eleven Ives Street, LLC, 5146 CRB-7-06-10 (November 5, 2007).

Claimant sought to add corroborating evidence of employment status after close of Formal Hearing. CRB denied. No evidence offered that claimant could not have presented this evidence in a timely manner to the trier of fact; hence it must be barred as per Pantanella v. Enfield Ford, 65 Conn. App. 46, 57-58 (2001). See also Reeve, § 31-275(9), § 31-275(10), § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-301-9.

Terlecky v. Stanley Works, Inc., 5277 CRB-6-07-10 (October 22, 2007).

Appeal from ruling at informal hearing remanded as no record exists for board to properly consider pursuant to § 31-301.

Hodio v. Staples, Inc., 5152 CRB-3-06-10 (October 3, 2007).

Respondents appealed Finding and Award claiming relief ordered was beyond scope of Chapter 568. In accordance with Serluca v. Stone & Webster Engineering, 5118 CRB-8-06-8 (July 13, 2007), CRB clarified the effect of the commissioner’s order and upheld trial commissioner. Bifurcation appropriate to deal with possible sanctions and record does not support respondent’s view commissioner had predetermined view as to merits of such claim. See also, Hodio, § 31-294, § 31-307.

O’Connor v. Med-Center Home Healthcare, Inc., 5142 CRB-5-06-10 (August 28, 2007), dismissed for lack of final judgment, A.C. 29187 (January 10, 2008), appeal dismissed (for failure to appeal directly to board following trial commissioner’s May 30, 2008 Finding on remand), A.C. 30200 (March 12, 2009), cert. granted, 292 Conn. 910 (2009).

Affirmed trial commissioner as award for prescription drugs and mileage but remanded for order as to specific amounts. See, O’Connor, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-294d, § 31-307.

Williams v. Bantam Supply Co., 5132 CRB-5-06-9 (August 30, 2007).

Trial commissioner determined claimant’s back injury was due to a 2000 work-related injury. Respondents presented surveillance evidence contesting the claim trial commissioner disregarded in his Finding and Award. Respondents appealed asserting their Motion to Correct incorporating this evidence should have been granted. CRB upheld trial commissioner, inferring he did not find this evidence probative and material Totality of medical evidence supported the commissioner’s findings See also, Williams, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-294d.

Almohtasib v. D’Angelo Sandwich Shop, 5249 CRB-8-07-7 (August 21, 2007).

Appeal from trial commissioner’s order subsequent to an informal hearing directing a commissioner’s examination premature.

Green v. General Motors Corporation New Departure, 5111 CRB-6-06-7 (August 21, 2007).

Claimant had suffered compensable injuries to each knee in 1990. Respondents filed Form 36 to discontinue temporary partial disability payments and award a permanent partial disability award. Trial Commissioner granted Form 36 and awarded permanent partial benefits. Claimant appealed asserting commissioner failed to consider Osterlund claim and lack of notice regarding issue of permanent partial benefits. CRB upheld trial commissioner on these issues. Commissioner not persuaded by claimant’s arguments she was still totally disabled. Claimant’s effort to add additional evidence barred as per Schreiber v. Town & Country Auto Service, 4239 CRB-3-00-5 (June 15, 2001). Permanency issue presented prior to start of formal hearing; hence no inconsistency between relief sought and relief awarded. See also Green, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-308(b).

Risola v. Hoffman Fuel Company of Danbury, 5120 CRB-7-06-8 (July 20, 2007), dismissed for lack of final judgment, A.C. 29056 (October 18, 2007).

Matter remanded due to reliance on inconsistent expert opinion. See also, Risola, § 31-308(b).

Angol v. In Your Neighborhood Construction, LLC, 5125 CRB-5-06-9 (July 17,2007).

Attorney for respondent filed motion to withdraw appearance. CRB determined substantive and procedural requirements had been fulfilled to grant motion and approved withdrawal.

Caraballo v. Specialty Foods Group, Inc./Mosey’s Inc., 5082 CRB-1-06-4 (July 3, 2007).

Claimant asserted that respondent’s medical care plan (see Sec. 31-279(c)) had treated a work-related injury prior to her filing an admittedly late Form 30c. Respondents denied she satisfied “medical care exception”. Trial commissioner dismissed claim without obtaining testimony from witnesses or obtaining exhibits. Claimant appealed. CRB remanded matter for evidentiary hearing, as “the record is inadequate.” Bennett v. Wal-Mart Stores, 4939 CRB-7-05-5 (May 15, 2006). Commissioner should have obtained evidence as to jurisdictional facts prior to reaching decision as to jurisdiction. See also, Caraballo, § 31-279(c), § 31-294c.

Liebel v. Stratford, 5070 CRB-4-06-3 (May 17, 2007).

Claimant failed to file Motion to Correct, depriving trier of opportunity to reconsider any credibility-based findings. CRB’s ability on review to assess facts found was also limited. There was more than one imaginable explanation for trier’s decisions not to cite testimony of claimant’s wife regarding nature of her alleged attorney-client relationship with claimant, and not to award certain attorney’s fees, and for trier’s determination that length of therapy sessions was only one hour. CRB had to assume these decisions were based on trier’s assessment of evidentiary credibility. See Liebel, § 31-294c, § 31-294d, § 31-295, 31-300, § 31-312; also cited at Liebel, § 31-278, § 31-298, § 31-307.

Lopez v. A. Anastasio Fence Co., 5101 CRB-4-06-6 (May 23, 2007).

CRB granted claimant’s motion to dismiss the appeal under Practice Book § 85-1. Respondent failed to file reasons of appeal, file a brief, attend the hearing, or seek a postponement.

Walter v. Bridgeport, 5092 CRB-4-06-5 (May 16, 2007).

CRB denied motion to dismiss appeal of pro se claimant who filed narrative-form letter in place of Reasons of Appeal, and whose brief was filed 15 days after due date in briefing schedule. Statements in letters set forth general basis of appeal. Respondents showed no significant prejudice from irregularities. See also, Walter, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-307.

Quinn v. Prime Technology, LLC, 5222 CRB-3-07-4 (May 14, 2007).

Appeal from § 31-288 and § 31-300 sanction issued for failure to attend informal hearing remanded for formal hearing or other appropriate action. No record exists for board to properly consider appeal.

Bishop v. Masonic Healthcare Center, 5202 CRB-8-07-3 (March 27, 2007).

Respondents filed an appeal from an order pursuant to § 31-294d issued subsequent to an informal hearing. Remanded for a formal hearing or other appropriate action as board cannot conduct a meaningful review absent a record.

Daley v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 4973 CRB-8-05-7 (March 13, 2007).

Respondent/appellant failed to file Motion to Correct factual findings with trier. CRB was limited to existing findings on appeal, with review focusing on consistency of legal conclusions with those findings. See also, Daley, § 31-299b.

Sinclair v. Stop & Shop, Companies, Inc., 5036 CRB-3-05-12 (March 6, 2007), dismissed for lack of final judgment, A.C. 28651 (September 13, 2007).

CRB ordered trial de novo where trial commissioner’s factual findings were inconsistent.

Bosco v. Bosco, 5184 CRB-3-07-1 (February 13, 2007).

Trial commissioner granted insurer’s Motion to Dismiss. Appeal filed by another insurer from said ruling. CRB remanded as board cannot properly consider an appeal absent a record.

Lema v. Eoanou, 5056 CRB-4-06-2. (January 29, 2007).

CRB appealed from denial of Motion to Correct rather than finding and award, which limited issue on review to denial of Motion to Correct. See also, Lema, § 31-275(9), § 31-301-4.

Rhoads v. Garbo Lobster Company, Inc., 4890 CRB-1-0-4-12 (December 20, 2006).

CRB granted respondents’ Motion to Dismiss where claimant did not prosecute appeal with due diligence despite numerous extensions of time.

Ferrin v. Glen Orne Leasing/Webster Trucking, 5037 CRB-1-05-12 (November 8, 2006).

CRB dismissed appeal. Appellant failed to order a transcript and thus the panel could not engage in a meaningful review.

Hicking v. State/Dept. of Correction, 5026 CRB-2-05-11 (November 3, 2006).

See Hicking, § 31-300.

Bedard v. Waterbury, 5140 CRB-5-06-10 (November 1, 2006).

Appeal from Informal Disfigurement Evaluation remanded for further proceedings as the board cannot properly consider an appeal absent a record.

Link v. Easton, 5130 CRB-4-06-9 (October 12, 2006).

Appeal from letters from the commissioner to the appellant indicating issues raised would be considered at a future hearing did not present appealable issues and were not ripe for review. See also, Link, § 31-290a.

Numan v. Warnaco, Inc., 5007 CRB-4-05-10 (September 22, 2006).

Within 20-day appeal period, respondents filed motions for extension of time to file Motion to Correct and to file petition for review. CRB denied motion to dismiss, as these filings indicated respondents’ intent to appeal. See also, Numan, § 31-301-4, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Richardson v. Bic Corporation, 4953 CRB-3-05-6 (September 7, 2006).

Claimant sought dismissal of respondents’ petition for review from denial of objection to claimant’s new evidence. Argument was based on principle of judicial economy disfavoring interlocutory appeals. Board explained basis for principle, but ruled that claimant’s interest in resolving case was paramount and would be best furthered if board agreed to articulate prior decision. See also, Richardson, § 31-298; also cited at Richardson, § 31-308(a). Prior case at Richardson, 4413 CRB-3-01-7 (August 5, 2002) § 31-308(a), § 31-308a.

Murphy v. Highfield Country Club, 5117 CRB-5-05-7 (August 22, 2006).

Absent a record, CRB cannot properly consider an appeal from a trial commissioner’s order issued as a result of an informal hearing. Remanded for a formal hearing or other appropriate action.

Corcoran v. Amgraph Packaging, Inc., 4819 CRB-2-04-6, 4948 CRB-2-05-5 (July 26, 2006).

CRB must accept the validity of the facts found by the trial commissioner when no Motion to Correct filed. See also, Corcoran, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-308(a) and Corcoran, 4948 CRB-2-05-5 (July 26, 2006).

Degray v. R & N Tire & Auto Ctr., 5103 CRB-1-06-6 (July 14, 2006).

Appeal remanded from § 31-308a Order issued as the result of an informal hearing. No record exists for board to properly review.

Gagnon v. State/Dept. of Correction, 4993 CRB-1-05-9 (July 6, 2006).

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss granted where claimant did not file a brief nor did the claimant appear at oral argument.

Murphy v. J.C. Penney Regional Catalog Center, 4987 CRB-8-05-8 (June 28, 2006), aff’d, 100 Conn. App. 904 (2007)(per curiam).

CRB granted appellees’ motion to dismiss appeal as it was filed more than 20 days after the commissioner rendered his decision. The appeal period begins to run when the trial commissioner’s decision is sent.

Sypher v. Getty Granite Company, 5077 CRB-8-06-4 (May 4, 2006).

Remanded for a formal hearing or other appropriate action. No record exists for CRB to properly consider an appeal from the trial commissioner’s § 31-294d(c) order.

Samaoya v. William Gallagher, 4951 CRB-7-05-6 (April 26, 2006).

Respondent did not file a Motion to Correct the factual findings of the trial commissioner. CRB bound to find such facts admitted for purposes of the appeal. See also, Samaoya, § 31-291, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-301-4.

Tremblay v. American Standard, 5071 CRB-8-06-3 (April 18, 2006).

Appeal from trial commissioner’s order issued as the result of a pre-formal hearing remanded. No record exists for board to properly review.

Naveo v. R.H.I. Corp., 5066 CRB-4-06-3 (April 18, 2006).

Appeals filed from two separate orders issued as a result of pre-formal hearings must be remanded as there is no record for board to properly review.

Teague v. Repko Roofing, 4920 CRB-7-05-2 (March 1, 2006).

Claimant’s appeal filed beyond twenty-day statutory period in § 31-301(a) C.G.S. Claimant’s brief untimely as well. CRB lacked jurisdiction and dismissed appeal under Practice Book § 85-1. CRB also set forth dicta concerning merits of appeal as an addendum to its decision.

Roussel v. Village Gate of Farmington, 4918 CRB-6-05-2 (February 28, 2006).

Threshold issue of whether appeal commenced pursuant to § 31-301(a) C.G.S. Extension of time to file an appeal filed within twenty day statutory period but reasons for appeal filed beyond this period. CRB found jurisdiction existed. Claimant’s filings sufficiently averred intent to appeal the trial commissioner’s ruling and adequately apprised opposing party of issues in dispute, thus satisfying due process concerns. Respondents did not claim prejudice from delay. See also, Roussel, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Villacorta v. U.S. Food Service, Inc., 5047 CRB-1-06-1 (February 16, 2006).

Appeal from oral order at informal hearing remanded for formal hearing or other appropriate action. Board cannot consider appeal under § 31-301 where no record exists.

Ramos v. The Hartford Courant, 5034 CRB-1-05-12 (January 18, 2006).

Remanded for further proceedings where appeal is filed from the trial commissioner’s § 31-308a order as the result of an informal hearing.

Bernier v. American Ref-Fuel Company of Southeast Connecticut, 4876 CRB-2-04-10 (December 23, 2005).

Board dismissed claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1 where pro se claimant failed to attend hearing, file motion to correct, reasons of appeal, or a brief. Board also noted that even if it were to consider merits of appeal, it would affirm trier’s decision, which was based on evidentiary credibility.

Gomez v. Laidlaw Education Services, 4859 CRB-2-04-9 (December 15, 2005).

Pro se parties are given wide latitude but still must conform to various substantive requirements of the law. See also, Gomez, § 31-275(1), § 31-301-9.

Victoria v. Textron Lycoming, 4490 CRB-4-02-2 (December 12, 2005).

Appeal dismissed on basis of pro se appellant’s failure to prosecute with due diligence. A matter cannot be continued ad infinitum while waiting for the appellant to provide the necessary materials which may support his appeal.

Risola v. Hoffman Fuel Company of Danbury, 5020 CRB-7-05-11 (November 30, 2005).

Remanded where appeal is filed from the approval of a Form 36. Board cannot properly consider an appeal absent a record.

Badawich v. Federal Express Corporation, 5018 CRB-7-05-11 (November 30, 2005).

Remanded where appeal from a § 31-308a order was issued absent a hearing on the record.

Strona v. Textron Lycoming, 4938 CRB-3-05-5 (October 3, 2005).

CRB clarified its prior ruling in Strona, 4700 CRB-3-03-7 (August 6, 2004). In that opinion the CRB remanded the matter for a trial de novo. Here, the board noted that a “trial de novo” is an order for a new trial and the matter should not have been assigned to the same commissioner who heard and decided the matter previously. Prior decision at Strona, 4398 CRB-4-01-5 (August 6, 2002).

Mele v. Hartford, 4870 CRB-1-04-10 (September 29, 2005).

See, Mele, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Caggiano v. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 4984 CRB-1-05-7 (August 25, 2005).

Appeal filed from § 31-308a order issued as a result of a pre-formal hearing. Remanded. Absent a record board cannot adequately consider appeal.

Duglenski v. Waterbury, 4971 CRB-5-05-7 (July 27, 2005).

Remanded for formal hearing or other appropriate action where § 31-301(f) order is issued as the result of an informal hearing.

Hicking v. State/Department of Correction, 4825 CRB-2-04-6 (July 14, 2005).

CRB denied Motion to Dismiss appeal where Motion to Reopen was filed within twenty day appeal period pursuant to Practice Book § 63-1. CRB refused to review accuracy of lien filed pursuant to § 38a-470 where no question was raised regarding such when it was administratively noticed at formal hearing. CRB refused to review trier’s admittance of testimony at formal hearing when no objection had been raised at hearing. See also, Hicking, § 31-301, Factual findings, § 31-308(a).

Piscitelli v. Textron Lycoming Division, 4793 CRB-4-04-3 (July 7, 2005).

CRB denied respondents’ Motion to Dismiss claimant’s appeal based on an untimely filing of brief. Respondents failed to show prejudice. See also, Piscitelli, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-307.

Carroll v. Flattery’s Landscaping, Inc., 4839 CRB-1-04-8 (June 29, 2005).

Pro se claimant’s letter construed as Reasons of Appeal and commissioner’s denial of claimant’s request to disqualify respondents’ counsel affirmed. See also, Carroll, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Orciari v. Labor Ready, Inc., 4702 CRB-5-03-8 (May 25, 2005).

CRB dismissed claimant’s appeal as untimely.

Lanteri v. New London Police Dept., 4752 CRB-2-03-11 (May 19, 2005).

Pro se claimant did not file Reasons of Appeal within ten-day period required by Admin. Reg. § 31-301-2, and respondents filed timely Motion to Dismiss. Reasons of Appeal were not filed until seven months later. CRB declined to dismiss appeal, in consideration of claimant’s unfamiliarity with appeal process, and lack of demonstrated prejudice to respondents based on tardiness of Reasons of Appeal. See also, Lanteri, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-301-4.

Algiere v. Norwich Free Academy, 4775 CRB-2-04-1 (April 27, 2005).

Remanded for trial commissioner’s articulation as to basis of conclusion. See also, Algiere, § 31-308(a).

Soto v. Casco Products, Inc., 4806 CRB-4-04-5 (April 26, 2005).

CRB dismissed claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute with due diligence.

Ferrin v. Glen Orne Leasing/Webster Trucking, 4802 CRB-8-04-4 (March 28, 2005).

CRB allowed pro se claimant’s appeal to go forward. Although the claimant failed to file document entitled “Reasons for Appeal,” he provided a letter to the board which delineated claims of error. See also, Ferrin, § 31-301-4.

Merenski v. Greenwich Hospital Association, 4822 CRB-7-04-6 (January 12, 2005).

Remanded where finding is issued absent a formal hearing on the record. No exhibits or transcript exist to properly consider appeal pursuant to § 31-301(a).

Miller v. Blue Bell Mattress Company, Inc., 4889 CRB-1-04-12 (December 17, 2004).

Appeal from trial commissioner’s order directing respondent to pay for commissioner’s exam remanded for a formal hearing or other appropriate action. No record exists for board to properly consider appeal.

Byrd v. Bechtel/Fusco, 4765 CRB-2-03-12 (December 17, 2004).

Pro se claimant filed Reasons for Appeal nine days late. No prejudice alleged or demonstrated. CRB denied motion to dismiss appeal. See also, Byrd, § 31-279(c), § 31-301. Factual findings. Prior decision at Byrd, 4656 CRB-2-03-4 (July 14, 2004), aff’d, 90 Conn. App. 641 (2005), cert. denied, 276 Conn. 919 (2005), § 31-278, § 31-280.

Cichy v. MTU Aero Engines North America, 4882 CRB-6-04-10 (December 2, 2004).

Remanded for a formal hearing or other appropriate action where § 31-308a order is issued as a result of an informal hearing.

Horobin v. West Haven, 4724 CRB-3-03-9 (December 2, 2004).

CRB accepted late Reasons of Appeal where neither appellee (under Practice Book § 66-8) nor CRB took action seeking dismissal of appeal, and no prejudice to parties was apparent from the delayed filing. See also, Horobin, § 31-296. Voluntary agreements (approval of), § 31-300, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-307, § 31-349, § 31-298.

Ginsberg v. Combined Insurance Co., 4875 CRB-6-04-10 (November 17, 2004).

Trial commissioner’s order vacating an earlier approval of a Form 36 was issued as a result of a pre-formal hearing. Remanded to create a record.

Lopez v. Lowe’s Home Improvement Center, 4871 CRB-6-04-10 (November 1, 2004).

Trial commissioner’s § 31-308a order issued as a result of an informal hearing. Remanded for a formal hearing or other appropriate action. Absent a record, the CRB cannot properly consider an appeal.

Donaldson v. Continuum of Care, Inc., 4581 CRB-3-02-10 (October 6, 2004).

CRB denied motion of attorney to withdraw as claimant’s counsel on appeal. Situation might still be resolved productively, and effective replacement counsel was difficult or impossible for claimant to obtain.

Greene v. State/University of Connecticut Health Center, 4749 CRB-1-03-11 (September 28, 2004), appeal dismissed, A.C. 26004 (January 27, 2005).

See, Greene, § 31-296. Prior decision at Greene, 4285 CRB-1-00-8 (September 21, 2000).

Zarodkiewicz v. Stamford, 4837 CRB-7-04-7 (August 31, 2004).

Appeal from trial commissioner’s informal disfigurement evaluation remanded for a formal hearing or other appropriate action. A record must exist before the board can properly consider an appeal.

Feliciano v. Bristol, 4834 CRB-6-04-7 (August 26, 2004).

Sections 31-288 and 31-300 order imposed a fine for non-appearance at an informal hearing. Remanded as no record exists for the board to properly consider appeal.

Belanger v. J & G Belanger Concrete Construction, 4684 CRB-6-03-6 (July 28, 2004).

CRB declined to dismiss appeal where respondents-appellants’ brief was captioned “Motion to Reverse Finding and Award” and accompanied by “Memorandum of Law in Support of Appeal.” Commission has no rule in place regarding captioning of briefs, and it is not CRB practice to demand strict adherence to terms of Practice Book § 67-4 and § 67-5. Memorandum of Law adequately set forth ground for appeal, and substantially satisfied requirement that appellant file a brief. See also, Belanger, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Bidoae v. Hartford Golf Club, 4693 CRB-6-03-7 (June 23, 2004), aff’d, 91 Conn. App. 470 (2005), cert. denied, 276 Conn. 921 (2005).

CRB will not address issue decided in earlier appeal of same case. See also, Bidoae, § 31-307. Prior decision at Bidoae, 4424 CRB-6-01-8 (June 27, 2002), appeal dismissed for lack of final judgment, A.C. 23245 (September 11, 2002), later aff’d, 91 Conn. App. 470 (2005).

Bonauito v. Westport, 4811 CRB-4-04-5 (June 9, 2004).

Sec. 31-308a order issued as the result of an informal hearing. Remanded for formal hearing or other appropriate action where there is no record to properly consider the appeal.

Kuelesza v. O & G Industries, 4692 CRB-4-03-7 (May 25, 2004).

CRB refused to reverse trier’s decision based on a scrivener’s error. See also, Kuelesza, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Papapietro v. Bristol, 4674 CRB-6-03-6 (May 3, 2004).

CRB held commissioner not required to rule on hypothetical factual situation. See also, Papapietro, § 31-294d, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Hummel v. Marten Transport, Ltd., 4667 CRB-5-03-5 (May 3, 2004), appeal dismissed for lack of final judgment, 90 Conn. App. 9 (2005), cert. granted, 275 Conn. 913 (2005).

CRB refused to grant Motion to Dismiss based on late filing of Motion to Correct and failure to file Reasons for Appeal where the trial commissioner ruled on Motion to Correct and respondents filed document delineating its reasons for appeal. Claimant did not prove prejudice. Appellate Court reasoned the determination of the amount of benefits to be paid was still pending before the trial commissioner, therefore, the case was dismissed for lack of final judgment. See also, Hummel, § 31-301. Factual findings. Subsequent decision at Hummel, 4760 CRB-5-03-12 (November 19, 2004).

Bonito v. ESPN/Walt Disney Co., 4789 CRB-8-04-2 (March 22, 2004).

Appeal from trial commissioner’s denial of claimant’s § 31-290a claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appeal from trial commissioner’s decision must be filed with the Appellate Court.

DeMatteo v. East Haven, 4778 CRB-3-04-1 (March 3, 2004).

Remanded for a formal hearing where § 31-308a order is issued as the result of an informal hearing.

Pastor v. Torre Tile Distributors, Inc., 4634 CRB-8-03-2 (February 23, 2004).

Panel granted Motion to Dismiss appeal for failure to prosecute with due diligence.

Rurak v. Sweet Life Inc., 4630 CRB-1-03-2 (February 6, 2004).

Although pro se appellants are given great latitude in terms of complying with appellate procedures, some document should be filed that would apprise the opposing party of grounds for the appeal. See also, Rurak, § 31-296, § 31-301-9. Additional evidence.

Bazzano v. Adecco Employment Services, 4750 CRB-1-03-11 (January 5, 2004).

Remanded for formal hearing or other appropriate action where trial commissioner’s order imposing sanctions pursuant to § 31-300 is issued absent a formal hearing on the record.

Pelletier v. R & L Acoustics, Inc., 4596 CRB-6-02-12 (November 26, 2003).

Petition for review was filed after twenty-day appeal period expired, requiring CRB to dismiss appeal. “Inadvertence, mistake or neglect” by claimant’s counsel in accidentally misfiling the commissioner’s decision was not sufficient ground to constitute failure of notice under Kudlacz v. Lindberg Heat Treating Co., 250 Conn. 581 (1999).

Melendez v. Valley Metallurgical, 4178 CRB-2-00-1 (November 19, 2003), rev’d, 86 Conn. App. 880 (2005)..

Trier issued finding and award on January 14, 2000. CRB reversed in part with orders for further proceedings. Melendez v. Valley Metallurgical, 4178 CRB-2-00-1 (May 1, 2001). Appellate Court dismissed claimant’s appeal on July 11, 2001, for lack of final judgment. Formal hearing was held on remand, and trier issued supplemental finding and award on January 28, 2003. Claimant did not appeal second decision to CRB, instead appealing directly to Appellate Court, which again dismissed for lack of final judgment. Claimant then moved to have CRB reopen 2001 decision and reissue consolidated decision incorporating its earlier ruling and trier’s subsequent award. Held: Carlino v. Danbury Hospital, 1 Conn. App. 142 (1984), provides that CRB retains jurisdiction over appeals where remand proceedings require trier to exercise fact-finding discretion. Claimant is not required to file subsequent appeals from supplemental findings in order to preserve initial appeal. CRB granted motion to reopen judgment for limited purpose of reconfirming prior decision, along with decisions on subsequent motions, and to incorporate into its decision trier’s January 28, 2003 findings, which stand as final determination of remand issues. Appellate court reversed, distinguishing Carlino and holding that board lacked statutory authority to consider motion to reopen decision. Prior decision at Melendez, May 1, 2001, § 31-278, § 31-298, § 31-300, § 31-303; see also May 24, 2001 ruling on motion for articulation, § 31-301. Appeal procedure.

Cutler v. S. Carpenter Construction Co., 4737 CRB-6-03-10 (November 3, 2003).

Remanded where trial commissioner’s rulings are issued absent a formal hearing on the record.

Hudson v. State/Dept. of Correction, 4582 CRB-3-02-11 (October 31, 2003).

CRB remanded trier’s finding on the issue of unreasonable contest as no evidentiary record existed. See also, Hudson, § 5-142(a).

Vetre v. State/Department of Administrative Services, 4728 CRB-6-03-9 (October 8, 2003).

Ruling denying claimant’s Motion to Disqualify issued absent a Formal Hearing on the record. Remanded to create record. Prior decisions at Vetre, 3948 CRB-6-98-12 (February 14, 2000), § 31-298, § 31-301. Appeal procedure, and Vetre, 3443 CRB-6-96-10 (January 16, 1998), § 31-298, Vetre, 3443 CRB-6-98-12 (November 28, 2000).

Threlfall v. Connecticut Institute For The Blind, 4727 CRB-6-03-9 (October 8, 2003).

Remanded for formal hearing or other appropriate action where § 31-308a order is issued as the result of an informal hearing.

Rios v. Boehle’s Express, 4726 CRB-6-03-9 (October 8, 2003).

Order pursuant to §§ 31-288 and 31-300 for non-appearance at a duly noticed informal hearing. Remanded to create record.

Paradis v. New England Drywall Company, Inc., 4680 CRB-6-03-6 (October 8, 2003).

Remanded where trial commissioner’s ruling on objection to scheduling approval of stipulation hearing is issued absent a formal hearing on the record.

Pantanella v. Enfield Ford, 4721 CRB-1-03-9, 4720 CRB-1-03-9 (September 18, 2003).

Orders pursuant to § 31-308a, § 31-300 and, § 31-288 issued as a result of an informal hearing. Remanded for further proceedings where no evidentiary record was created.

Carmody v. Waterbury, 4712 CRB-5-03-8 (September 16, 2003).

Remanded for formal hearing or other appropriate action where § 31-308a order is issued as a result of an informal hearing.

Aulenti v. Darien, 4571 CRB-7-02-9 (September 6, 2003).

CRB could not review granting of § 31-294c motion to preclude, as trier’s order was issued sans a formal hearing, and no evidentiary record was created. Remanded.

Mackiewicz v. Aetna Life & Casualty, 4558 CRB-8-02-8 (August 14, 2003).

CRB dismissed appeal as the appellant Second Injury Fund failed to provide a transcript. CRB did not reach the issue raised by the Fund as to whether it must reimburse for concurrent employment pursuant to § 31-310 when medical evidence arguably supported apportionment under 31-299b for repetitive trauma to which some portion of liability might lie against the concurrent employer.

Donaldson v. Continuum of Care, Inc., 4581 CRB-3-02-10 (July 29, 2003).

CRB denied the claimant’s attorney’s request to withdraw his appearance.

Travis v. Forestville Lumber Company, Inc., 4690 CRB-6-03-6 (July 9, 2003).

Remanded for a formal hearing or other appropriate action where order imposing sanctions pursuant to § 31-288 and § 31-300 is issued as the result of an informal hearing.

Ortiz v. Mosey’s, Inc., 4681 CRB-1-03-5 (July 9, 2003).

Trial commissioner issued a ruling without a formal hearing on the record. Remanded for a formal hearing or other appropriate action.

Martinez v. Cellu Tissue Corporation, 4668 CRB-1-03-5 (June 25, 2003).

Appeal remanded for formal hearing or other appropriate actions where trier’s order pursuant to §§ 31-302 and 31-308a are issued as the result of an informal hearing.

Mace v. Tradesource, Inc., 4664 CRB-6-03-5 (May 14, 2003).

Secs. 31-288, 31-300, and 31-308a orders issued as the result of an informal hearing. Matter remanded for a formal hearing or other appropriate action where there is no record for the board to properly consider the appeal.

Mason v. Dale Construction, Inc., 4476 CRB-3-01-2 (April 28, 2003).

Claimant died several days prior to issuance of trier’s Finding and Dismissal. Trial counsel filed petition for review, but had no authority to proceed further. At time of oral argument, no estate had been created, nor were probate proceedings pending. Respondents moved to dismiss for failure to file Reasons of Appeal. CRB granted request for dismissal of appeal, but did so without prejudice against rights of possible future estate administrator to reopen petition for review. Section 45-330 C.G.S. allows probate action to be commenced up to ten years after date of decease. Given absence of estate, it is impossible to meaningfully notify claimant of adverse decision, and dismissal with prejudice would be inappropriate. Prior decision at Mason, 4354 CRB-3-01-1 (November 7, 2001).

Yuille v. Bridgeport Hospital, 4525 CRB-4-02-5 (April 28, 2003).

CRB declined to dismiss petition for review for failure to file Reasons of Appeal within extended time period granted by board. Despite timely motion to dismiss, CRB still retains discretion over whether to dismiss appeal. No prejudice was shown from delay, as oral argument was held as originally scheduled, and respondents explained reason for needing second, two-week extension of time. See also, Yuille, § 31-307, § 31-307c. Prior decision at Yuille, 3735 CRB-4-97-12 (June 10, 1998), § 31-301. Appeal procedure, § 31-301c, § 31-327.

Pastorelli v. Pomerantz Staffing Services, 4641 CRB-1-03-3 (April 16, 2003).

CRB remanded matter for a formal hearing or other appropriate action as the result of the trial commissioner’s order pursuant to § 31-288 issued subsequent to an informal hearing.

Krajewski v. Atlantic Machine Tool Works, Inc., 4500 CRB-6-02-3 (March 7, 2003).

Various issues not raised in appeal papers were mentioned for benefit of pro se claimant, but were not extensively considered by CRB. See also, Krajewski, § 31-278, § 31-284b, § 31-290a, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-301-9, § 31-312, § 31-313, § 31-315; prior decisions at Krajewski, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 44, 2120 CRB-6-94-8 (November 28, 1995), § 31-308a; Krajewski, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 54, 1387 CRD-6-92-2 (April 1, 1993), § 31-290a.

Mack v. State/Department of Correction, 4589 CRB-1-02-11 (January 8, 2003).

Section 31-308a order issued as result of informal hearing, so no record existed for proper review under 31-301(a). Remanded for formal hearing or other appropriate action.

Stevenson v. Edward W. Stevenson & Sons, 4480 CRB-8-02-1 (January 8, 2003).

Matter remanded where trier made assumption as to the date of the first manifestation of symptom rather than factual finding. See, Stevenson, § 31-294c, § 31-306.

Bombardier v. CT Valley Fitness Center, 4475 CRB-6-02-1 (November 20, 2002).

Claimant-appellant failed to file Motion to Correct. Where basis of appeal was omission of allegedly undisputed facts that trier might have drawn from evidence, CRB affirmed trier’s determination that said evidence was not credible. See also, Bombardier, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Downer v. Mark IV Construction, Inc., 4462 CRB-3-01-11 (November 15, 2002).

CRB granted motion to dismiss appeal where pro se claimant’s letter to trier, which was construed as petition for review, was filed one day after twenty-day appeal period had expired. In dicta, board also explained for claimant’s benefit that evidence in record supported dismissal of total disability claim, and CRB could not reverse.

Chung v. Wal-Mart, 4474 CRB-2-02-1 (November 13, 2002).

Respondents appealed from trier’s imposition of fine pursuant to § 31-288(b)(2) for failure to appear at informal hearing. As fine was imposed at informal hearing, CRB remanded matter to give respondents opportunity to prepare an evidentiary record and present their claims at a formal hearing. See also, Chung, § 31-288(b)(2), § 31-297.

Conerly v. IBM, 4567 CRB-7-02-9 (November 7, 2002).

Remanded where formal hearing was conducted off the record. No exhibits or transcript exist to properly consider appeal pursuant to § 31-301(a). See subsequent decision at Conerly, 4619 CRB-7-02-12 (December 29, 2003), § 31-294c.

Smedley v. State/Department of Mental Retardation, 4461 CRB-5-01-11 (October 25, 2002), rev’d on other grounds, 270 Conn. 32 (2004).

Where originals of documents could not be located, parties submitted copies and agreed to same in writing. See also Smedley, § 31-308a.

Mckim v. C & S Wholesale Grocers, Incorporated, 4565 CRB-1-02-9 (October 10, 2002).

Section 31-308a order issued as result of an informal hearing. Without a record, case was not ripe for appellate review. Remanded for formal hearing or other appropriate action.

Kovalik v. E. Stiewing Movers, Inc., 4556 CRB-7-02-8 (August 29, 2002).

CRB dismissed petition for review where no formal hearing had yet been held to allow creation of evidentiary record. Respondents had filed appeal from Memorandum of Decision that expressed trier’s intent to interpret law surrounding § 31-310 in a certain manner should the facts establish that injury was a new injury rather than a recurrence, but said facts had not yet been found, and CRB does not render advisory opinions.

Iciak v. Cary Insulation/New England Building Products, 4539 CRB-8-02-6 (July 17, 2002).

Appeal from trier’s denial of respondents’ motion to dismiss remanded where no record exists for board to review.

Williams v. Merestone Construction, 4436 CRB-4-01-9 (July 3, 2002).

Board dismissed pro se claimant’s appeal as late where nothing was filed until the 11th day, when the claimant filed a Motion to Correct. Claimant did not appeal from denial of Motion to Correct. In his appeal, claimant was addressing legal issues of trier’s decision. As claimant failed to appear at oral argument and failed to file reasons of appeal, board also dismissed appeal for failure to prosecute. Even if board were to address merits, trier’s decision would be affirmed, as neither § 31-293 nor § 31-355 require that the Fund cover an unpaid § 31-290a claim. See also, Williams, § 31-293, § 31-355(b).

Kenyon v. General Dynamics Corp./Electric Boat Division, 4521 CRB-1-02-4 (June 4, 2002).

Where claimant filed written hearing request on “Motion to Correct” following CRB dismissal of prior appeal on ground that board lacked jurisdiction over appeal from § 31-290a ruling, and trier treated hearing request as Motion to Correct (which was denied), CRB ruled that appeal from that denial must be dismissed. Not only does CRB lack jurisdiction over § 31-290a appeals, it also need not rule on a moot issue. As “Motion to Correct” was not a valid issue for hearing, this sequence of events had no possible disposition with legal significance. See also, Kenyon, § 31-290a. Prior decision at Kenyon, 4497 CRB-1-02-3 (March 13, 2002), § 31-290a.

Hashmi v. Dan’s Shell of West Hartford, 4524 CRB-1-02-5 (May 30, 2002).

Section 31-301(b) requires CRB to review trier’s decision on record of proceedings below. Because there was no formal hearing in this case, there were neither exhibits nor a transcript for CRB to review on appeal. Case remanded.

Drew v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 4400 CRB-7-01-5 (May 2, 2002).

Pro se claimant’s failure to request transcript of formal hearing prevented board from reviewing trial proceedings. Though board shows leniency to pro se claimants insofar as possible (i.e., construing Reasons of Appeal as a brief), claimant is ultimately responsible for providing adequate record for review. See also, Drew, § 31-301-9, § 31-315.

Sellers v. Sellers Garage, 4391 CRB-5-01-5 (April 26, 2002).

Pro se claimant failed to file Motion to Correct, which prevented CRB from being able to question whether trier misinterpreted evidence, or failed to consider other relevant evidence. Numerous claims of error affected. See also, Sellers, § 31-296 Voluntary agreements (discontinuance of payments). Subsequent decision at Sellers, 4762 CRB-5-03-12 (February 3, 2005), aff’d, 92 Conn. App. 650 (2005); 4807 CRB-5-04-5 (March 3, 2005), aff’d, 92 Conn. App. 683 (2005).

Gomes v. City of Bridgeport, 4510 CRB-4-02-3 (April 25, 2002).

Section 31-288(b) order issued as the result of an informal hearing. Matter not ripe for appellate review where no record exists. Case remanded.

Woomer v. Home Depot, 4507 CRB-2-02-3 (April 25, 2002).

Section 31-288(b) order issued as the result of an informal hearing. Matter not ripe for appellate review where no record exists. Remanded for formal hearing or other appropriate action.

Bellman v. Christy’s Market, 4387 CRB-6-01-5 (March 25, 2002).

Board dismissed pro se claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1 where claimant failed to file reasons of appeal, motion to correct, or brief. Although claimant was represented by counsel at trial level, CRB noted that correspondence in the record indicated that her attorney would not represent her in her appeal and advised her to obtain other counsel. Also, claimant did not argue that her attorney should have appeared at oral argument. Board added that. even if it were to consider merits of appeal, it would necessarily affirm trier’s credibility determination that claimant’s alleged spinal cord and brain injuries were not caused by a compensable fall-down injury. See also, Bellman, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Vetre v. State, 4378 CRB-6-01-4 (March 14, 2002).

CRB affirmed trier’s decision to deny respondent extension of time to file Motion to Correct. Respondent’s counsel missed formal hearing on proper amount of attorney’s fees awarded for unreasonable contest, and did not show that any effort was made to obtain transcript of that hearing or affidavits of claimant’s counsel until after trier released his decision. No abuse of discretion. CRB also declined to address issues that had been discussed in earlier CRB opinions. Prior decisions at Vetre, 3443 CRB-6-98-12 (November 28, 2000), § 31-297, § 31-298, § 31-300, § 31-307; Vetre, 3948 CRB-6-98-12 (February 14, 2000), § 31-298, § 31-301. Appeal procedure; and Vetre, 3443 CRB-6-96-10 (January 16, 1998), § 31-298. Subsequent decision at Vetre, 4728 CRB-6-03-9 (October 8, 2003).

Puchala v. Connecticut Abatement Technologies, 4232 CRB-4-00-4 (January 30, 2002).

Board dismissed respondent’s appeal, which became moot when a Full and Final Stipulation was approved by a Commissioner. Board took note that respondent had not withdrawn its appeal as requested. Prior decision at Puchala, 3859 CRB-4-98-7 (September 27, 1999), § 31-275(9), § 31-291.

Marcoux v. Allied Signal, 4366 CRB-4-01-3 (January 16, 2002).

Claimant’s failure to file Motion to Correct limited ability of CRB to review factual findings, as trier has sole authority to reconsider impressions drawn from evidence. See also, Marcoux, § 31-301. Factual findings.

DeFelippi v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 4349 CRB-5-01-1 (January 15, 2002).

CRB denied motion to dismiss appeal where petition for review was faxed to district office on last day of appeal period, and original petition for review plus four copies arrived only one day later. See also, DeFelippi, § 31-294d.

Noble v. Allstate Insurance Co., 4074 CRB-5-99-7, 4096 CRB-5-99-7 (January 10, 2002).

Appeals filed in effort to transfer liability to Second Injury Fund were rendered moot where prior appeal addressed merits of case and CRB affirmed trier’s finding that claimant failed to sustain burden of proving that mental stress and physical illness were caused by workplace harassment. Prior decision at Noble, 4157 CRB-5-9-12 (July 28, 2000), aff’d, 67 Conn. App. 160 (2001). Section 31-301. Factual findings.

Robare v. Robert Baker Companies, 4328 CRB-1-00-12 (January 2, 2002).

Board explained that it has subject matter jurisdiction over appeal from denial of Motion to Correct where nothing was filed within ten days of the initial decision. However, board expressed reluctance to allow “back door” route to review of merits, and thus held that its scope of review was necessarily limited to reviewing errors in denial of Motion to Correct. See also, Robare, § 31-301-4.

Lemelin v. MRC Bearings, Inc., 4320 CRB-5-00-12 (December 27, 2001).

Medical care provider’s appeal was late, as it was not filed within ten days of Finding and Dismissal as required by § 31-301(a). Provider contended that he did not receive decision within ten-day appeal period. Record corroborated this claim, indicating that copy of decision was not sent to provider until he telephoned district office, at which time it was mailed to him via certified mail. Accordingly, appeal was deemed timely, as provider filed his appeal within ten days after decision was sent to him. See also, Lemelin, § 31-294d.

Fiamma v. Moliterno Stone Sales, 4465 CRB-1-01-12 (December 20, 2001).

Section 31-288(b) order issued as the result of an informal hearing. Matter not ripe for appellate review where no record exists. Remanded for formal hearing or other appropriate action.

Hatt v. Burlington Coat Factory, 4326 CRB-2-00-12 (December 19, 2001).

Board declined to dismiss appeal where appellant did not receive certified letter containing decision until one month after award was issued, even though appellant received a fax copy of the decision on the ninth appeal day. Notice must be provided by certified mail under § 31-321, and board declined to hold that a lesser form of notice satisfied this requirement and triggered appellant’s obligation to respond by close of tenth day. See also, Hatt, § 31-299b, § 31-349.

Mele v. City of Hartford, 4453 CRB-1-01-9 (November 30, 2001).

Trier’s order pursuant to § 31-288 and § 31-300 issued as result of informal hearing. Absent a record, appeal is not ripe for review. Remanded for formal hearing or other appropriate action.

Somsky v. Bridgeport Hospital Foundation, Inc., 4336 CRB-4-01-1 (November 15, 2001).

Respondent failed to prosecute appeal from decision on § 31-290a claim and attorney’s fees. CRB dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction insofar as it concerned merits of § 31-290a claim, and for failure to prosecute pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1 insofar as it might have sought to challenge attorney’s fee award. See also, Somsky, § 31-290a.

McCall v. State/University of Conn/Storrs, 4451 CRB-2-01-10 (November 13, 2001).

Section 31-288(b) order issued as the result of an informal hearing. Matter not ripe for appellate review where no record exists. Remanded for formal hearing or other appropriate action.

Mason v. Dale Construction, Inc., 4354 CRB-3-01-1 (November 7, 2001).

CRB had jurisdiction over claimant’s appeal from denial of motion to preclude, which ruling was made during formal hearing. Respondents argued that it was premature for board to consider claimant’s appeal, as trier had not yet issued any findings of fact. Board determined it had jurisdiction under § 31-301(a), which allows it to hear an appeal from “a decision of the commissioner upon a motion;” CRB has held that this contemplates some jurisdiction over “interlocutory rulings in the districts.” See also, Mason, § 31-284(a), § 31-298, § 31-294c. Subsequent decision at Mason, 4476 CRB-3-01-2 (April 28, 2003).

Napolitano v. Bridgeport, 4388 CRB-4-01-5 (October 22, 2001).

Attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel granted where it appeared confidence and trust between claimant and his lawyer had eroded.

Bergin v. State/Department of Correction, 4200 CRB-8-00-3 (August 23, 2001), aff’d., 75 Conn. App. 591 (2003), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 903 (2003).

Claimant failed to file a timely appeal from the Finding and Dismissal, but approximately two months later filed a Motion to Reopen which was denied by the trial commissioner. The claimant appealed to the board from that denial. Board explained that it had jurisdiction only over the denial of the Motion to Reopen, but that it could not consider the merits of the Finding and Dismissal as no seasonable appeal had been taken from said decision. See Bergin, § 5-145a and § 31-315.

Taylor v. Ron Fournier Builders, 4257 CRB-5-00-6 (July 30, 2001).

Pro se claimant’s appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute under Practice Book § 85-1, as nothing was filed beyond petition for review. See also, Taylor, § 31-355, § 31-294f.

Barretta v. Thermal Acoustics, Inc., 4142 CRB-3-99-11 (July 12, 2001).

Board noted that claimant’s appeal appeared to be untimely, but issue of timeliness had not been addressed by parties. Thus, because claimant-appellant did not have opportunity to address timeliness of appeal, board explained that even if it were to consider merits of appeal, it would affirm trier. See also, Barretta, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Christoforo v. Christoforo’s Northford Gardens, 4260 CRB-3-00-06 (July 2, 2001).

Board denied Motion to Dismiss where claimant’s Motion to Correct was filed within the ten-day appeal period. See also, Christoforo, § 31-294c, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-301-4.

Porter v. Wallingford, 4273 CRB-8-00-7 (June 21, 2001).

Trial counsel filed late petition for review, noting on petition that mail had been delayed due to change in his office address. He was also placed on inactive status under Practice Book § 2-58 due to illness, and a trustee was appointed for his clients. Trustee requested 90-day extension of “all dates” to allow distribution of attorney’s files to new counsel. Six months passed, during which nothing more was filed on claimant’s behalf. CRB dismissed appeal for failure to prosecute in a diligent manner under Practice Book § 85-1, and also on ground that appeal was, on its face, filed in untimely fashion. Claimant would have burden of offering evidence to CRB to show that counsel failed to receive notice of commissioner’s decision within ten days, thereby extending appeal period pursuant to Kudlacz v. Lindberg Heat Treating Co., 250 Conn. 581 (1999).

Cartagena v. Electroflex Heat, Inc., 4363 CRB-1-01-3 (June 6, 2001).

Board dismissed respondent’s appeal from Finding and Award in which trier found that respondent had violated § 31-290a. Appeal dismissed, as CRB lacks jurisdiction over appeals arising from § 31-290a rulings.

Gawlik v. Stanley Hand Tools, 4303 CRB-6-00-10 (June 6, 2001).

Subsequent to filing of appeal, claim was settled pursuant to an approved Full and Final Stipulation. As claimant’s appeal became moot, and it was not withdrawn as requested, CRB dismissed appeal.

Searles v. Town of West Hartford, 4396 CRB-01-01-05 (June 6, 2001).

CRB dismissed claimant’s appeal from Finding and Dismissal of § 31-290a claim, as CRB lacks jurisdiction over such appeals.

Ciocci v. Morrison Knudsen, Inc., 4244 CRB-1-00-5 (June 1, 2001).

Appellant’s failure to file Motion to Correct curtailed ability of board to scrutinize trier’s factual findings, and absence of transcript from formal hearing prevented CRB from using parties’ discussion to clarify meaning of trier’s ambiguous finding. See also, Ciocci, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-310, § 31-315.

Melendez v. Valley Metallurgical, 4178 CRB-2-00-1 (May 24, 2001), appeal dismissed, A.C. 23921 (May 14, 2003), cert. denied, 266 Conn. 904 (2003).

CRB construed “Motion to Correct Opinion” of CRB as motion for articulation of its decision in Melendez, 4178 CRB-2-00-1 (May 1, 2001). No “corrections” ordered. See also, Melendez, § 31-278, § 31-298, § 31-300, § 31-303. Related decision in Melendez, 4178 CRB-2-00-1 (November 19, 2003), rev’d, 86 Conn. App. 880 (2005)(no jurisdiction to rule on motion to reopen CRB decision), supra.

Schreck v. Stamford, 3322 CRB-7-96-4 (May 17, 2001), rev’d on other grounds, 72 Conn. App. 497 (2002).

Absence of Motion to Correct curtailed ability of board to scrutinize subordinate facts found. See also, Schreck, § 31-293, § 31-300. Prior decision at Schreck, 3322 CRB-7-96-4 (September 23, 1997) (dismissal order), rev’d, 51 Conn. App. 92 (1998), rev’d on different grounds, 250 Conn. 592 (1999), appeal reinstated, 3322 CRB-7-96-4 (July 21, 2000), infra.

Simpson v. Mediplex of Wethersfield, 4210 CRB-6-00-3 (May 4, 2001)

Board dismissed claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1 where pro se claimant failed to file motion to correct, reasons of appeal, or brief. Board also noted that even if it were to consider merits of appeal, it would affirm trier’s decision, which was based on evidentiary credibility.

Spak v. Shelton Lake Residence, 4372 CRB-4-01-3 (April 26, 2001).

Board dismissed claimant’s appeal insofar as it related to § 31-290a claim. However, claimant also alleged that trier erred in denying her request for interest and attorney’s fees, which was a separate issue. That portion of appeal must be heard. Subsequent decision at Spak, 4372 CRB-4-01-3 (December 7, 2001), § 31-300.

Shahid v. AAA Nursing Care, 4227 CRB-4-00-4 (March 8, 2001).

CRB dismissed pro se claimant’s appeal pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1, as no supportive documents had been filed.

Kelley v. Venezia Transport Services, 4184 CRB-2-00-2 (March 8, 2001).

Absence of Motion to Correct prevented CRB from scrutinizing factual findings on review. See also, Kelley, § 31-278, § 31-294c.

Garcia v. Tully, 4209 CRB-7-00-3 (March 1, 2001).

Respondent’s attorney received trier’s decision four or five days after it was sent, but failed to file petition for review until either twelve or thirteen days later. Board held that it did not matter if Commission employee deposited notice of ruling in box outside post office instead of placing it directly in custody of postal worker, as it was sent certified either way, and this minor variance in procedure does not appear to have prejudiced the respondent. Appeal dismissed as late. Also, in footnote CRB noted that filing of motion to correct did not serve to extend initial appeal period where separate petition for review was filed from denial of that motion, and respondent was primarily aggrieved by award itself. See also, Garcia, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Warren v. Federal Express Corp., 4163 CRB-2-99-12 (February 27, 2001).

Pro se claimant filed untimely reasons of appeal. CRB denied respondent’s motion to disregard that document, as rules of procedure are often relaxed for pro se parties, and respondent showed no prejudice from delay. See also, Warren, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-301-9.

Iannarone v. State/Dept. of Mental Retardation, 4310 CRB-7-99-11 (December 6, 2000).

Trial commissioner’s order was issued as the result of an informal hearing. Absent a record of the proceedings below, CRB cannot properly consider appeal under § 31-301. Case remanded for a formal hearing or other appropriate action. Subsequent decision at Iannarone, 4138 CRB-7-99-10 (June 15, 2001), § 31-308a, § 31-310, § 31-314.

Mursko v. R & K Spero, 4159 CRB-3-99-12 (November 30, 2000).

Pro se claimant filed a late petition for review, and did not file any supporting documentation such as brief or Reasons of Appeal. No allegation that decision was received after ten-day appeal period had expired. Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss granted under § 31-301(a) and Practice Book § 85-1.

Chang v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc., 4122 CRB-6-99-9 (November 28, 2000).

Appellant Second Injury Fund failed to file Reasons for Appeal until several months after its extension for filing lapsed. By then, CRB had scheduled hearing to show cause why appeal should not be dismissed under Practice Book § 85-1. Though panel was not sympathetic to Fund’s reasons for the delayed filing, no overt prejudice to respondents’ defense of appeal was shown. CRB thus refrained from dismissing appeal.

Rowe v. Yale University, 4124 CRB-3-99-9 (November 27, 2000).

CRB dismissed respondent’s appeal following motion to withdraw appeal. However, CRB also awarded sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees against respondent after finding that the appeal was frivolous (it was taken from an unwritten ruling at an informal hearing) and was taken primarily for the purpose of vexation and delay.

Christman v. State/Dept. of Correction, 4134 CRB-1-99-10 (October 16, 2000).

CRB dismissed claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute pursuant Practice Book § 85-1, as pro se cross-appellant had failed to secure substitute counsel for over five months, and had filed neither Reasons for Appeal or brief. See also, Christman, § 31-308(a), § 31-296.

Barrillaro v. Southington/Board of Education, 4294 CRB-6-00-9 (October 6, 2000).

Trial commissioner’s order was issued as the result of an informal hearing. Absent a record of the proceedings below, CRB cannot properly consider appeal under § 31-301. Case remanded for a formal hearing or other appropriate action.

Greene v. State/University of Connecticut Health Center, 4285 CRB-1-00-8 (September 21, 2000).

The trial commissioner’s order was issued as the result of an informal hearing. Absent a record of the proceedings below, CRB cannot properly consider appeal under § 31-301. Case remanded for a formal hearing or other appropriate action. Subsequent decision at Greene, 4749 CRB-1-03-11 (September 28, 2004). Section 31-296 Voluntary agreements (discontinuance of payments), § 31-301. Appeal procedure.

Walsh v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, 4282 CRB-5-00-8 (September 13, 2000).

The trial commissioner’s order was issued as the result of an informal hearing. Absent a record of the proceedings below, CRB cannot properly consider appeal under § 31-301. Case remanded for a formal hearing or other appropriate action.

Draughn v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 4055 CRB-8-99-6 (August 29, 2000).

Dismissal order for failure to diligently prosecute appeal under Practice Book § 85-1 (formerly Practice Book § 4055), as appellant filed nothing in support of the review petition other than a pair of last-minute requests by counsel to postpone oral argument due to illness (granted) and then a Superior Court scheduling conflict (denied).

Judkins v. Michael Streckfus Co., 4072 CRB-8-99-6 (August 9, 2000).

Section 31-288b order issued as the result of an informal hearing. Matter is not ripe for appellate review where no record exists. Remanded for formal hearing or other appropriate action.

Iannorone v. State/Dept. of Mental Retardation, 4138 CRB-7-99-10 (August 4, 2000).

Respondent’s cross-appeal was filed within ten days of the filing of the claimant’s appeal. Respondent contended that its cross-appeal should be deemed timely based upon § 61-8 of the Connecticut Practice Book, which provides that an appellee may file a cross appeal “within ten days from the filing of the appeal.” CRB held that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a late appeal. Though we look to the rules of court regarding procedural aspects of appeals, we may not apply those rules to create subject matter jurisdiction over an otherwise late appeal. Note: In a September 14, 2000 ruling, the board denied the respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration. The board explained that in contrast to the limited jurisdiction of this board, the Appellate Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is not affected by a late appeal, which allows the court to permit a party to pursue a late appeal. Subsequent decision at Iannarone, 4310 CRB-7-00-11 (December 6, 2000).

Rodrigues v. American National Can, 4043 CRB-5-99-4 (July 26, 2000).

In a footnote, CRB declined to strike appellants’ Motion to Correct and Reasons for Appeal despite counsel’s failure to sign those documents. Practice Book § 62-6 requires such signatures, but Practice Book 62-7 makes rejection of incorrectly filed papers discretionary. There was no dispute as to authenticity of papers, and claimant did not demonstrate prejudice from omission. See also, Rodrigues, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-308(a). Subsequent decision at Rodrigues, 4329 CRB-7-00-12 (January 2, 2002), § 31-279-3, § 31-296, § 31-298, § 31-301-9.

Kudlacz v. Lindberg Heat Treating Co., 3407 CRB-8-96-8 (July 21, 2000).

On remand from Supreme Court decision in Kudlacz, CRB was ordered to make factual findings as to whether, through no fault of his own, claimant did not receive notice of trier’s Finding and Dismissal within ten days of the date that it was sent. CRB found that claimant was not at fault for failing to receive such notice based on the testimony of the claimant’s trial counsel and his paralegal, as there was no evidence as to what date delivery was attempted by the post office. Claimant not held responsible for accounting for conduct of Postal Department employees. Appeal reinstated. Prior decision at Kudlacz, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 214, 3407 CRB-8-96-8 (June 6, 1997), aff’d, 49 Conn. App. 1 (1998) (with DISSENTING opinion), rev’d, 250 Conn. 581 (1999), infra.

Kulig v. Crown Supermarket, 3335 CRB-6-96-5 (July 21, 2000).

On remand from Supreme Court decision in Kulig, CRB was ordered to make factual findings as to whether, through no fault of her own, claimant did not receive notice of the trier’s Finding and Dismissal within ten days of the date that it was sent. CRB found that the claimant was not at fault for failing to receive such notice based on the testimony of the claimant’s trial counsel and his paralegal, as the only documentary evidence was a certified mail “green card” that listed the date of delivery as being over one month after the claimant’s copy of the decision was sent by the District Office. Board declined to apply presumption that a properly-mailed letter was received in a timely manner. Appeal reinstated. Prior decision at Kulig, 3335 CRB-6-96-5 (November 25, 1997), rev’d, 250 Conn. 603 (1999), infra.

Propiescus v. State/Office of the County Sheriff, 4261 CRB-1-00-6 (July 21, 2000).

Remanded. Appeal not ripe for review where petition is filed from a § 31-300 order issued as the result of an informal hearing.

Schreck v. Stamford, 3322 CRB-7-96-4 (July 21, 2000).

On remand from Supreme Court decision in Schreck, CRB was ordered to make factual findings as to whether, through no fault of his own, claimant did not receive notice of trier’s Finding and Order within ten days of the date that it was sent. CRB found that claimant was not at fault for failing to receive such notice. Postal carrier who initially attempted delivery of the certified letter did not inform the prospective recipient of the nature of the letter or of the post office where it was being held, and indicated that re-delivery was forthcoming when he left notice of attempted delivery. Re-delivery unexpectedly and inexplicably took twelve days. Appeal reinstated. Prior decision at Schreck, 3322 CRB-7-96-4 (September 23, 1997), rev’d, 51 Conn. App. 92 (1998), rev’d, 250 Conn. 592 (1999), infra.

Davis v. Edward J. Corrigan, 4024 CRB-2-99-3 (July 20, 2000).

CRB denied claimant’s Motion to Dismiss where employer was acting pro se and filed a timely appeal, but filed late Reasons of Appeal and a late brief, and failed to appear at oral argument. Additionally, the board noted that a Motion to Correct which has not been ruled upon by the trial commissioner is presumed denied for the purposes of appeal. See also, Davis, § 31-275(9).

Palma v. Manuel A. Pinho Landscaping, Inc., 4047 CRB-7-99-5 (July 18, 2000).

Claimant failed to order production of transcript on appeal, and failed to file Motion to Correct. CRB accordingly could not review allegations that trier relied upon information obtained solely at informal hearing, as the formal hearing record was unavailable for examination. Lack of Motion to Correct also prevented trier from reexamining his own findings in the event an improper factor was considered, and prevented trier from correcting two errors regarding his recital of the date of the claimant’s alleged injury. CRB refused to reverse trier’s decision based on presence of scrivener’s errors. See also, Palma, § 31-301. Factual findings notes.

Belanger v. J & G Belanger Concrete Construction, 4238 CRB-6-00-5 (June 23, 2000).

Remanded. Appeal not ripe for appellate review where petition is filed from a § 31-308a order issued as the result of an informal hearing. Subsequent decision at Belanger, 4368 CRB-6-01-3 (February 19, 2002), § 31-308a and Belanger, 4684 CRB-6-03-6 (July 28, 2004), § 31-301. Appeal procedure, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Rogers v. C.N. Flagg Power, 3809 CRB-6-96-5 (June 23, 2000).

CRB addressed claimant’s appeal from Chairman’s transfer of his case from one District to another. Matter remanded to trial commissioners who were involved for them to determine whether to recuse themselves. See also, Rogers, § 31-280.

Parker-Zaimoff v. Mohegan Sun Casino, 4224 CRB-2-00-4 (May 24, 2000).

Trier’s order denying approval of stipulation issued as the result of an informal hearing. Board cannot consider appeal where no record exists. Remanded for formal hearing or other appropriate action.

Quinn v. Dwan & Co., Inc., 4216 CRB-5-00-3 (May 24, 2000).

Section 31-288b order issued as the result of an informal hearing. Matter not ripe for appellate review where no record exists. Remanded for formal hearing or other appropriate action.

Rizor v. International Ice Cream Corp., 4206 CRB-1-00-3 (May 24, 2000).

Section 31-308a order issued as the result of an informal hearing. Matter not ripe for appellate review where no record exists. Remanded for formal hearing or other appropriate action.

Figliola v. Ogden Services, 4013 CRB-7-99-4 (March 27, 2000).

Claimant-appellant failed to file Motion to Correct, thus restricting scope of CRB review. See also, Figliola, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Palko v. State/Dept. of Correction, 4018 CRB-2-99-3 (March 22, 2000).

Claimant’s counsel withdrew in May 1999 after petition for review had been filed. Claimant was contemporaneously notified of motion to withdraw, but failed to obtain substitute counsel or file an appearance on his own behalf. Respondent moved to dismiss appeal in November 1999. Claimant faxed a request for a continuance the afternoon before the scheduled oral argument on the motion, stating that he was currently living in Virginia, and wished to represent himself in the appeal as he could not find an attorney. The fax contained no telephone number where he could be reached. CRB denied request for continuance, and granted Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1, as neither Reasons for Appeal nor a brief had been filed.

Schiaroli v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney, 3988 CRB-5-99-3 (March 7, 2000).

Pro se claimant filed no reasons of appeal or brief. CRB granted motion to dismiss, but also delved into facts. See also, Schiaroli, § 31-294d. Prior decision at Schiaroli, 3555 CRB-3-97-3 (December 30, 1997), infra.

DiBello v. Barnes Page Wire Products, 3970 CRB-7-99-2 (March 2, 2000), aff’d, 67 Conn. App. 361 (2001), cert. granted, 260 Conn. 915 (2002), appeal withdrawn (June 26, 2002)

CRB declined to address issue that was listed in reasons for appeal, but not briefed or raised at oral argument. See also, DiBello, § 31-278, § 31-294c, § 31-301-9, § 31-348. Subsequent decision at DiBello, 4290 CRB-7-00-9 (September 25, 2001), § 31-300, § 31-308a.

Wrice v. Sam’s Club, 4006 CRB-6-99-3 (February 17, 2000).

CRB granted attorney’s request to withdraw as counsel where he and the claimant both confirmed that he had never agreed to represent the claimant on appeal, and that he had filed a petition for review and a motion for extension of time on the claimant’s behalf as a favor while the claimant was attempting to retain substitute counsel. CRB also granted motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1, as neither a brief nor reasons of appeal were ever filed.

Vetre v. State/Dept. of Children and Families, 3948 CRB-6-98-12 (February 14, 2000).

Issues raised in previous appeal were not addressed due to nature of remand decision. See Vetre, 3443 CRB-6-96-10 (January 16, 1998). Commissioner’s ruling on remand was also appealed, and CRB affirmed. Board refused to presume that previously raised appellate issues had been abandoned. As two of the three panel members before whom those issues had been argued were no longer presiding over the case, the best course of action was to allow the respondent to reargue the leftover issues. See also, Vetre, § 31-298. Subsequent decision at Vetre, 3443 CRB-6-96-10 (November 28, 2000), § 31-297, § 31-298, § 31-300, § 31-307, Vetre, 4378 CRB-6-01-4 (March 14, 2002), Vetre, 4728 CRB-6-03-9 (October 8, 2003).

Levy v. Philip Technologies, 3989 CRB-8-99-3 (February 1, 2000).

Claimant/Appellant did not file brief on appeal. Trier had dismissed her action after two continuances because the claimant had not attempted to introduce any medical evidence supporting her contention that workplace chemical exposure caused her to develop leukemia. Without any evidence in the record supporting the claimant’s case, and without a brief to familiarize the board with the facts and legal arguments, the appeal had to be dismissed.

Prioli v. State/Connecticut State Library/Arts Commission, 3955 CRB-6-98-12 (January 13, 2000), aff’d, 64 Conn. App. 301 (2001), cert. denied, 258 Conn. 917 (2001).

Appellant’s failure to file brief prior to oral argument could have warranted dismissal, but CRB chose not to do so here. Instead, contents of late brief were not considered by panel. Failure to file Motion to Correct likewise does not mandate dismissal; instead, CRB is limited to factual findings in record unless they lack even an “iota of support.” Regarding petition for review, it was filed within ten days of denial of Motion to Open, but not within ten days of the memorandum of decision itself. Because motion to open was filed within ten days of the memorandum of decision, however, CRB held (in accord with Practice Book § 63-1(b)) that a new appeal period commenced upon issuance of decision denying motion to open, and the appeal was timely. See also, Prioli, § 31-278, § 31-290a, § 31-301-9, § 31-315, § 31-327. Subsequent decision at Prioli, 3955 CRB-6-98-12 (October 16, 2000), § 31-301c.

Reaves v. Brownstone Construction, 3930 CRB-4-98-11 (November 30, 1999).

CRB denied motion to dismiss respondents’ appeal for failure to file a brief. Pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1, the dismissal of an appeal for failure to prosecute with due diligence, including failure to file a timely brief, is discretionary. See also, Reaves, § 31-294c.

Green v. Yale University, 3842 CRB-3-98-6 (August 18, 1999).

Board dismissed claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1 where the claimant failed to file a motion to correct, reasons of appeal, or a brief.

Krevis v. Bridgeport, 3857 CRB-4-98-7 (August 18, 1999), aff’d, 63 Conn. App. 328 (2001).

No error in commissioner’s denial of Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion to Correct. Ruling is discretionary, and claimant did not explain why he needed more time to review the transcripts and exhibits. No unfair prejudice demonstrated by denial of request for extension. See also, Krevis, § 7-433c, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-307.

Hazard v. Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, 3813 CRB-2-98-5 (August 17, 1999).

Board dismissed claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1 where the claimant failed to file a motion to correct, reasons of appeal, or a brief, and failed to appear at oral argument.

Delsesto v. Steve Bousquet’s Appliance and T.V., 3826 CRB-2-98-6 (August 16, 1999).

Board dismissed claimant’s appeal pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1 where claimant failed to file reasons of appeal, a brief, or a motion to correct, and failed to appear at oral argument.

Grimes v. State/Dept. of Mental Health and Addiction Services, 3832 CRB-4-98-6 (July 22, 1999).

Board dismissed claimant’s appeal where petition of review was not date-stamped within the ten-day appeal period. Although claimant’s attorney contended that she had hand delivered the petition for review on the tenth day after the close of business, CRB held that in order to be timely the appeal needed to be delivered prior to the close of business on the tenth day. See also, Grimes, § 31-279-3 Request for continuance.

Ryan v. VIC Insulation, 3798 CRB-3-98-4 (June 30, 1999).

CRB declined to grant Motion to Dismiss based upon claimant’s late filing of Reasons of Appeal where Motion to Dismiss was not timely filed. See also, Ryan, § 31-294c.

Montini v. Life Touch National School, 3818 CRB-4-98-5 (June 21, 1999).

CRB dismissed appeal pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1. Claimant failed to file a Motion to Correct by the extended deadline and trier denied additional request for extension. Additionally, claimant failed to file Reasons of Appeal or any document which would reasonably indicate the issues he sought to have reviewed. Claimant also filed a Motion To Stay Judgment, which was denied.

Walter v. State/Services for the Blind, 3785 CRB-2-98-3 (June 18, 1999), aff’d, 63 Conn. App. 1 (2001).

All of claimants’ appellate arguments concern the previous decision of the CRB in Walter, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 107, 1694 CRB-2-93-4 (June 2, 1995), appeal dismissed for lack of final judgment, A.C. 14925 (September 7, 1995). As CRB does not disregard the law of cases already decided, it declined to reconsider any of those issues. Prior decision at Walter, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 107, 1694 CRB-2-93-4 (June 2, 1995), aff’d, 63 Conn. App. 1 (2001), § 31-294c, § 31-301-9 Additional evidence.

Silva v. Allied Signal/Bendix, 3794 CRB-5-98-4 (June 15, 1999).

Dismissal of appeal pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1 for failure to file brief, reasons of appeal or motion to correct.

Wooten v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney, 3674 CRB-6-97-9 (May 7, 1999).

Trier did not err by considering respondents’ Motion to Correct, which was filed six months after decision was issued. Trier has discretion to rule on late Motion to Correct, and claimant did not submit a timely objection to the tardily-filed motion. See also, Wooten, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-294d.

Allen v. Griffin Health Services Corp., 3768 CRB-4-98-2 (April 27, 1999).

Claimant did not file Motion to Correct, so CRB could not review evidence supporting facts found by trier. See also, Allen, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Capra v. State/Dept. of Correction, 3791 CRB-4-98-4 (April 27, 1999).

Petition for review that claimant sent to district office was returned for insufficient postage. However, he filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Reasons for Appeal within the 10-day period, and timely petitions for review were received by the employer and by the CRB administrative office. Held: Motion to Dismiss denied; substantial compliance with § 31-301(a) evident. See also, Capra, § 5-145a, § 31-298.

Melendez v. Warner’s, 3772 CRB-4-98-2 (April 23, 1999).

See, Melendez, § 31-288.

Soden v. Custom Bottles of CT, Inc., 3849 CRB-5-98-6 (March 3, 1999).

Appeal dismissed pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1 and as per the respondents’ Motion To Dismiss. Claimant-appellant did not file any papers in support of his appeal beyond his Petition for Review.

State/Workers’ Compensation Commission v. Todd Rose, 3896 CRB-2-98-9 (March 3, 1999).

Appeal dismissed pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1 where Appellant did not file Reasons of Appeal or brief, nor did he appear at oral argument.

Surozenski v. Glass Container Corp., 3753 CRB-2-97-12 (February 23, 1999).

See, Surozenski, § 31-301-9 (concerns attorney’s right to withdraw from case where attorney allegedly represented administrator only).

Bailey v. State/Greater Hartford Community College, 3694 CRB-1-97-9 (January 12, 1999), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 65 Conn. App. 592 (2001).

Respondent’s appeals from evidentiary decisions of trier were within jurisdiction of CRB under statute. Panel noted, however, that such appeals delay resolution of case, and are not encouraged. See also, Bailey, § 31-298. Subsequent decision at Bailey, 3922 CRB-2-98-10 (November 30, 1999), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 65 Conn. App. 592 (2001), § 31-300, § 31-307, and Bailey, § 31-284b, § 31-294d, § 31-301. Factual findings. Prior decision at Bailey, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 433, 3152 CRB-5-95-8 (September 3, 1996), infra, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Tucholski v. Rex Forge, 3756 CRB-6-98-1 (January 8, 1999).

Claimant’s attorney contended that appeal was filed late due to extenuating circumstances, including a change of personnel at the law firm. Because claimant’s petition for review was not filed within the time limits required by § 31-301(a), the CRB dismissed it as untimely. CRB noted that even if it had the jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal it would have to affirm the trial commissioner’s decision, which was based on the weight and credibility of the medical evidence.

Duntz v. Ales Roofing & Caulking Co., 3771 CRB-6-98-2 (December 22, 1998).

Respondent filed a late petition for review. Appeal had to be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. CRB noted in dicta that the trier’s decision would have been affirmed on the merits anyway, as it was a factual question concerning the existence of an employer-employee relationship. See also, Duntz, § 31-288.

Whelan v. Humphrey Chemical Co., Inc., 3726 CRB-3-97-11 (December 16, 1998).

Pro se claimant received four extensions of time to file various documents, but had still failed to file either Reasons for Appeal or a brief by the date of oral argument (which he did not attend). Appeal dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1. See also, Whelan, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Grimme v. Railroad Stores, Inc., 3722 CRB-5-97-11 (November 17, 1998).

Second Injury Fund filed brief one day before oral argument, without permission to file late brief. CRB declined to consider brief on appeal. See also, Grimme, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-349.

Fenn v. H.L. Bennett Jr., Inc., 3712 CRB-5-97-10 (November 16, 1998).

CRB dismissed pro se claimant’s late appeal. CRB also noted that even if it had jurisdiction, it would affirm trial commissioner’s decision because that decision was based upon the credibility of the evidence.

Harrison v. General Dynamics Corporation/Electric Boat Division, 3252 CRB-8-96-1 (November 9, 1998).

CRB dismissed late cross-appeal; claimant could not prevail on contention that issue of offset under § 31-293 was one of subject matter jurisdiction that could be raised at any time. See also, Harrison, § 31-310.

Reynolds v. Atlantic Foods, 3676 CRB-7-97-9 (October 20, 1998).

Claimant filed nothing in support of his appeal other than petition for review, and did not appear at oral argument. Appeal dismissed for failure to prosecute under Practice Book 85-1.

Samela v. New Haven, 3677 CRB-3-97-9 (October 20, 1998), aff’d, 54 Conn. App. 902 (1999)(per curiam).

CRB dismissed appeal due to late petition for review. See also, Samela, § 31-311.

Danise v. JMJB, Inc., d/b/a The Brake Shop Mechanic, 3681 CRB-7-97-9 (October 19, 1998).

Fund failed to file reasons for appeal or brief in support of petition for review, and did not appear at oral argument. CRB dismissed appeal pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1 for failure to prosecute.

Kovac v. Kecko Piping Company, 3806 CRB-4-98-4 (October 2, 1998).

Appeal moot as trier granted Motion To Reopen earlier decision dismissing claim.

Bowman v. Jack’s Auto Sales, 3622 CRB-8-97-6 (August 26, 1998).

Appellants failed to file Motion to Correct, so many of their arguments on appeal were foreclosed by the board’s inability to review the factual findings. See also, Bowman, § 31-315.

Mycek v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 3669 CRB-3-97-8 (August 26, 1998).

CRB did not dismiss petition for review for pro se claimant’s failure to file timely reasons for appeal, as a document was filed that served as both reasons for appeal and brief, and its tardiness did not prejudice the respondent. However, the claimant did not file a Motion to Correct, thus limiting the CRB to the commissioner’s findings, which directly supported the dismissal of the pro se’s claim. CRB discussed facts of case only for claimant’s benefit.

Caffery v. New Britain, 3866 CRB-6-98-7 (August 12, 1998), aff’d, 54 Conn. App. 902 (1999).

Appeal dismissed as petition for review was filed beyond statutory time period.

McCarthy v. AT&T Communications, Inc., 3689 CRB-6-97-9 (August 7, 1998).

Pro se claimant failed to file reasons for appeal, but did submit a brief that outlined the basis of her petition for review. CRB declined to dismiss appeal, as the rules of procedure are relaxed for pro se claimants. CRB did note that the claimant’s failure to file a Motion to Correct limited the board to the trier’s factual findings on review. See also, McCarthy, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Johnson v. Manchester Bus Service, Inc., 3863 CRB-1-98-8 (August 5, 1998).

Appeal moot as trier vacated Finding. Prior decision at Johnson, 3472 CRB-1-96-11 (April 1, 1998), § 31-308(b), § 31-308(c).

Levey v. Farrel Corp., 3649 CRB-4-97-7 (July 30, 1998).

CRB was limited to factual findings of trial commissioner on review due to claimant’s failure to file Motion to Correct. See also, Levey, § 31-308(a).

Simeone v. Tilcon Tomasso, 3616 CRB-3-97-4 (July 28, 1998).

No Motion to Correct was filed, so trial commissioner’s factual findings had to remain intact. Findings supported dismissal of heart attack claim. CRB also noted that trial commissioner had discretion to believe testimony of doctor who testified that there was no causal connection between the claimant’s employment and his heart attack.

Markham v. Summit Finishing Division, 3843 CRB-5-98-6 (July 22, 1998).

CRB dismissed appeal where the respondents filed a petition for review from an order of the trial commissioner that was subsequently vacated. The respondents’ appeal became moot when the trier’s order was vacated.

Mayo v. Cupid Linen Services, 3682 CRB-1-97-9 (July 14, 1998).

Pro se claimant filed late petition for review (and no other documents in support of appeal). Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Shanklin v. UTC/CTVIP, 3537 CRB-5-97-2 (June 22, 1998).

Trial commissioner did not err in ruling on late Motion to Correct, as trier may extend time for filing that motion. See also, Shanklin, § 31-308(b).

Yuille v. Bridgeport Hospital, 3735 CRB-4-97-12 (June 10, 1998).

Frivolous appeal, last-minute withdrawal. Sanctions awarded to claimant. See also, Yuille, § 31-301c, § 31-327. Subsequent decision at Yuille, 4525 CRB-4-02-5 (April 28, 2003).

Czujak v. Bridgeport, 3535 CRB-4-97-2 (June 10, 1998).

Late appeal by claimant had to be dismissed as untimely. See also, Czujak, § 7-433c, § 31-300, § 31-307a, § 31-315. Subsequent decision at Czujak, 4371 CRB-4-01-3 (April 8, 2002), § 31-297, § 31-301(g).

Perrelli v. Stack, Inc., 3546 CRB-3-96-1 (June 4, 1998).

CRB dismissed late petition for review. Prior decision at Perrelli, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 211, 3243 CRB-3-95-12 (June 6, 1997), infra, § 31-294c.

Richard v. U.S. Repeating Arms, 3558 CRB-3-97-3 (June 1, 1998).

Pro se claimant failed to file Motion to Correct. CRB could not review factual findings (which were based on evidentiary credibility anyway).

Hyatt v. Ames Department Stores, Inc., 3533 CRB-6-97-2 (May 14, 1998).

CRB dismissed claimant’s appeal pursuant to Practice Book § 4184A, where the claimant failed to file a motion to correct, reasons of appeal, or a brief and failed to appear at oral argument.

Dowling Considine v. Slotnik, 3468 CRB-4-96-11 (May 6, 1998).

Claimant moved for sanctions against respondents for filing a bad faith appeal, citing Practice Book § 4184B and § 4165.4. CRB granted motion. Respondents appealed § 31-355 order against Second Injury Fund because they were afraid that if claimant received benefits, and ultimately lost on appeal, she would not pay them back. Respondent offered no substantive defense to either § 31-301(f) mandate of payment pending appeal or § 31-355 order. See, Dowling, § 31-290, § 31-296. See also, Dowling, § 31-301(f) notes. Prior decision at Dowling, 3062 CRB-4-95-5, 3277 CRB-4-96-2 (February 5, 1997), aff’d, rev’d and remanded in part, 244 Conn. 781 (1998)(with DISSENTING opinion), § 31-275(9), § 31-288, § 31-301. Appeal procedure, § 31-307.

Cafaro v. Emerson Carpentry, 3528 CRB-8-97-1 (April 24, 1998).

The claimant’s petition for review was not filed within the time limit required by § 31-301(a) and CRB thus dismissed it as untimely. CRB did not agree with claimant’s argument that the ten day appeal period should not commence until receipt of the trial commissioner’s decision.

Collins v. Waterbury Nursing Center/Crescent Manor, 3554 CRB-5-97-3 (April 24, 1998).

CRB dismissed the claimant’s petition for review because it was not filed within the time limits required by § 31-301(a). The ten day appeal period commences upon the date the trial commissioner’s decision is sent, not the date of receipt.

Stabile v. Bridgeport Hospital, 3642 CRB-4-97-7 (April 9, 1998).

CRB dismissed respondents’ appeal pursuant to Practice Book § 4184A, where the respondents failed to file a motion to correct, reasons of appeal, or a brief and failed to appear at oral argument.

Coley v. Camden Associates, Inc., 3432 CRB-2-96-9 (April 6, 1998).

Corrections not ruled on by trial commissioner are presumed denied for purposes of appeal. See also, Coley, § 31-300, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-343. Prior decision at Coley, 3432 CRB-2-96-9 (February 28, 1997), rev’d, 243 Conn. 311 (1997), § 31-301(f).

Phillips v. Phillips d/b/a We Care Day Care, 3578 CRB-1-97-3 (April 2, 1998), aff’d, 52 Conn. App. 902 (1999)(per curiam).

CRB dismissed the claimant’s petition for review because it was not filed within the time limit set by § 31-301(a).

Couto-Radcliff v. Glen Hill Convalescent, 3576 CRB-7-97-3 (April 2, 1998).

Appeal dismissed for failure to file timely appeal. The respondents contended that they filed a timely appeal from the denial of their Motion to Correct. The respondents Motion to Correct was filed well beyond the ten-day appeal period. The filing of a Motion to Correct after the ten-day appeal period does not serve to extend the appeal period. Compare Buccieri, § 31-301, this section.

Tsimbidaros v. Jackson, 3575 CRB-4-97-3 (April 2, 1998).

CRB dismissed the claimant’s petition for review because it was not filed within the time limit established by § 31-301(a).

Dubret v. Fairfield/Police Dept., 3495 CRB-4-96-12 (April 1, 1998).

Panel granted Motion to Dismiss appeal for failure to prosecute with due diligence. Noted: Commission policy is that counsel who appeals to CRB can not withdraw appearance on claimant’s behalf unless substitute counsel is designated.

Moawad v. American Eagle, 3701 CRB-6-97-10 (March 9, 1998).

CRB granted the claimant’s attorney’s request to withdraw his appearance.

McKenna v. Thorne & Cleaves, Inc., 3557 CRB-7-97-3 (February 4, 1998).

Appeal dismissed where issue on appeal is resolved by prior decision of the board. See, McKenna, 3365 CRB-7-96-6 (July 29, 1997).

Fusciello v. Ronnie Demeo, Inc., 3406 CRB-8-96-8 (February 4, 1998).

Claimant failed to file a Motion to Correct, so he was limited to the trier’s findings on appeal. See also, Fusciello, § 31-307. Prior decision at Fusciello, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 283, 1535 CRB-6-92-10 (June 7, 1994), § 31-275(1), § 31-275(16), § 31-307. Subsequent decision at Fusciello, 4340 CRB-6-01-1 (January 7, 2002), § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-307.

Iacobucci v. Marriott Corp., 3562 CRB-4-97-3 (January 30, 1998).

CRB dismissed the claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4184A, where the claimant failed to file a motion to correct, reasons of appeal, or a brief and failed to appear at oral argument.

Pistritto v. Hartford Hospital, 3451 CRB-1-96-10 (January 28, 1998).

CRB dismissed the pro se claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4184A where the claimant failed to file a motion to correct, reasons of appeal, or a brief and failed to appear at oral argument.

Algiere v. General Dynamics Corporation/Electric Boat Division, 3466 CRB-8-96-11 (January 27, 1998).

Appellee’s motion to dismiss denied where claimant contended that the appellants did not file a timely petition for review. The appellants contended that they did file a timely petition for review and that the district office was merely unable to locate it. The CRB held that, given that a motion to correct was filed within the time permitted for the filing of a petition for review along with the appellants’ motion for extension of time to file reasons for appeal, the appellants substantially complied with § 31-301(a). Additionally, an issue not referred to in a brief or in Reasons of Appeal is deemed abandoned.

Hurley v. Bridgeport, 3435 CRB-4-96-9 (January 20, 1998).

Claimant filed his appeal after 5:00 p.m. on the tenth day following notice of the decision, and it was not stamped in by the District Office until the next business day. Held: appeal petition late; petition for review dismissed. Appeal had to be filed by the close of the business day in order to be considered as having been filed on that date. CRB also noted that merits warranted dismissal, as trier’s decision that claimant did not suffer repetitive trauma injury was based on the medical reports of several doctors. See also, Hurley, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Powell v. Xerox Corp., 3452 CRB-2-96-10 (January 16, 1998).

Pro se claimant filed nothing in support of his appeal aside from the petition for review itself. Case dismissed pursuant to Practice Book § 4184A.

Vastola v. A.C.E.S., 3448 CRB-3-96-10 (January 16, 1998).

Claimant filed late petition for review, and no documents in support of her appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Dacres v. Zeigler, 3401 CRB-7-96-8 (January 6, 1998).

Petition for review was filed one day late. Board lacks jurisdiction to consider appeal. Plus, no Motion to Correct, and issue on appeal was a question of fact.

Buccieri v. Pacific Plumbing Supply Co., 3286 CRB-7-96-3 (December 30, 1997), aff’d, 53 Conn. App. 671 (1999).

Appeal from trial commissioner’s granting of Motion to Correct which changed the trial commissioner’s conclusion. See also, Buccieri, § 31-301. Factual findings and § 31-301-4. Correction of Finding.

Schiaroli v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney, 3555 CRB-3-97-3 (December 30, 1997).

Pro se claimant failed to file a Motion to Correct, so CRB could not review the accuracy of the trier’s factual findings. Regardless, ample support existed in the record for the trier’s decision. Subsequent decision at Schiaroli, 3988 CRB-5-99-3 (March 7, 2000), supra, § 31-294d.

Torres v. United Illuminating, 3723 CRB-3-97-11 (December 16, 1997).

Trier awarded § 31-308a benefits after informal hearing. No record available for review. Respondents’ appeal dismissed.

Hutchings v. Bob’s Discount Furniture, 3372 CRB-5-96-7 (December 4, 1997).

No one appeared on behalf of the claimant/appellant at oral argument, and no brief or Motion to Correct was filed. Appeal dismissed pursuant to § 4184A of the Practice Book for failure to prosecute with proper diligence.

Reith v. Alpine Tree Care, 3556 CRB-7-97-3 (December 4, 1997).

The trial commissioner’s decision in the instant case was based upon an informal hearing. Accordingly, this matter is remanded for a formal hearing as we are unable to engage in a meaningful review and cannot properly consider this appeal in accordance with § 31-301.

Kulig v. Crown Supermarket, 3335 CRB-6-96-5 (November 25, 1997), rev’d, 250 Conn. 603 (1999).

Dismissal of late petition for review. Supreme Court reversed board’s dismissal. Although ten day appeal period begins to run when notice is sent by the commissioner, statutory time period may be tolled if party wishing to appeal establishes, that through no fault of his own, he did not receive notice within ten days of the date that notice was sent.

Connole v. J&J Blasting, Inc., 3696 CRB-7-97-9 (November 20, 1997).

Respondents’ counsel appealed $250 fine imposed against it for failure to appear. No record for CRB to examine. Appeal dismissed.

Muldoon v. New England Installation, 3415 CRB-4-96-8 (November 3, 1997).

The trial commissioner’s decision was based upon an informal hearing, and thus no transcript or exhibits exist regarding the underlying proceeding. Accordingly, CRB remanded the matter as it was unable to engage in a meaningful review and could not properly consider this appeal in accordance with § 31-301. Prior decision at Muldoon, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 255, 1226 CRD-4-91-5 (January 13, 1993), rev’d, 33 Conn. App. 695 (1994), rev’d, 231 Conn. 469 (1994), aff’d on remand, 37 Conn. App. 266 (1995); Muldoon, 3345A, 3345B CRB 4-96-5 (November 3, 1997). Subsequent decision at Muldoon, 3552 CRB-4-97-3 (August 24, 1998).

Ricci v. Redstone Development Corp., 3370 CRB-3-96-6 (October 29, 1997).

Respondent contested percentage of permanent partial disability and total disability award, implicating the accuracy of the trier’s findings. However, no Motion to Correct was filed. Thus, the findings must stand, and as they supported the trier’s conclusions, the board affirmed the commissioner’s decision.

Cortesi v. Warner, 3598 CRB-1-97-5 (October 27, 1997).

See, Cortesi, Admin. Reg. § 31-301-9. Additional evidence.

Gyadu v. D’Addario Industries, 3617 CRB-5-97-4 (October 9, 1997), rev’d, 53 Conn. App. 179 (1999), appeal dismissed by Board June 15, 1999.

The board dismissed the claimant’s petition for review as it was not filed within the time limit established by § 31-301(a). The Appellate Court reversed and remanded the case to the board because the board had not made a factual determination as to when the trial commissioner’s decision had been mailed to the parties. Upon remand, the board found that the record indicated that the Finding and Award was properly mailed to all parties pursuant to a signed certification in the file. Accordingly, the board dismissed the claimant’s appeal as untimely in Gyadu v. D’Addario Industries, 3617 CRB-5-97-4 (June 15, 1999). Upon further consideration by the three member board, after oral argument was presented by the claimant, the board again dismissed the claimant’s appeal as untimely in Gyadu v. D’Addario Industries, 3617 CRB-5-97-4 (March 8, 2000). Previous decision at Gyadu v. D’Addario Industries, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 151, 3058 CRB-4-96-3 (May 2, 1997), appeal dismissed, A.C. 17260 (September 11, 1997), motion for reconsideration denied (October 24, 1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 961 (1998), § 31-308b.

Schreck v. Stamford, 3322 CRB-7-96-4 (September 23, 1997), rev’d, 51 Conn. App. 92 (1998), cert. granted, 247 Conn. 955 (1999), rev’d, 250 Conn. 592 (1999).

CRB dismissed claimant’s appeal as untimely where it was filed thirteen days after the trial commissioner’s decision had been issued. The CRB was unpersuaded by the claimant’s attorney’s contention that the post office had attempted delivery in a timely manner but that his office was closed on that date and he did not receive the trial commissioner’s decision until after the ten-day period had expired. Appellate Court reversed on ground that statute requires decision to be sent to claimant personally before appeal period starts to run; mailing it to the claimant’s attorney is insufficient. Supreme Court reversed, and held that where a party is represented by an attorney, the ten day appeal period begins to run on the date that notice is sent to the attorney rather than to the claimant. However, the court explained that where, as here, the claimant has consistently maintained that his attorney did not receive notice until after the ten day period, the claimant was entitled to establish this contention, and if successful to have his appeal reinstated.

St. Lot v. Franklin Mushroom Farm, 3331 CRB 2-96-4 (September 23, 1997).

CRB dismissed the claimant’s appeal because it was filed twelve days after the trial commissioner’s decision had been issued. Also, claimant failed to prosecute his appeal with due diligence.

Aquino v. Clairol, Inc., 3527 CRB-7-97-1 (September 17, 1997).

CRB remanded case to trial commissioner where all of the parties agreed that this matter should be remanded for a clarification of his decision. Subsequent decision at Aquino, 3802 CRB-7-98-4 (March 3, 1999), § 31-307.

Noga v. Colin Service Systems, Inc., 3361 CRB-6-96-6 (September 16, 1997).

Respondents moved to dismiss appeal for late petition for review, as it was filed on June 10, 1996, 11 days after notice of the trial commissioner’s decision was mailed. However, June 9, 1996 was a Sunday, and Practice Book § 4010 states that when the offices of a court are closed on the last day for filing a paper, the paper may be filed on the next day when such office is open. Motion to dismiss denied.

Curtiss v. State/Dept. of Mental Retardation Region 2, 3220 CRB-6-95-11 (August 20, 1997).

Failure to file Motion to Correct limits CRB to the commissioner’s findings. See also, Curtiss, § 31-307.

Cummings v. Twin Tool Manufacturing, 3641 CRB-1-97-6 (August 4, 1997), aff’d, 48 Conn. App. 915 (1998)(per curiam).

The claimant’s petition for review was not filed within the time limit set by § 31-301(a) and was thus dismissed as untimely. See Prior decision at Cummings, 3395 CRB 1-96-8 (July 15, 1997), aff’d, 48 Conn. App. 914 (1998)(per curiam).

Schilling v. New Departure-Hyatt Division, 3290 CRB-6-96-3 (August 4, 1997).

CRB declined to dismiss appeal for late filing of claimant’s brief where brief was only two weeks late and respondents did not show any prejudice from the delay. See also, Schilling, § 31-308.

Zito v. General Dynamics Corporation/Electric Boat Division, 3478 CRB-8-96-11 (July 9, 1997).

The CRB dismissed the Second Injury Fund’s appeal on the basis of Practice Book § 4184A, failure to prosecute with due diligence. The CRB vacated its June 27, 1997 bench ruling where a majority of the panel members granted the appellee’s Motion To Dismiss for failure to timely file an appeal petition. (Note one panel member dissented from the bench ruling.) In its earlier bench ruling the majority found that the Fund’s filing of an appeal on November 22, 1996 following the November 12, 1996 Finding and Award was untimely as it was filed beyond the ten days permitted by § 31-301(a). After further reflection the panel vacated its earlier ruling on the basis of Practice Book § 4010, which provides, “in determining the last day for the filing of papers, the last day shall, and the first day shall not, be counted.” However, the panel then dismissed the appeal on the basis of the Fund’s failure to prosecute with due diligence as no Reasons For Appeal nor Motion To Correct were filed by the Fund until after the matter was scheduled for oral argument. The CRB noted that transcripts and exhibits were available to the Fund prior to the scheduling of this matter.

Pesce v. Mitchell Bate Company, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 231, 3236 CRB-5-95-12 (June 23, 1997).

Failure to file Motion to Correct limits CRB to facts found in the decision. Only legal conclusions may be reviewed. See also, Pesce, § 31-294e.

Kudlacz v. Lindberg Heat Treating, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 214, 3407 CRB-8-96-8 (June 6, 1997), aff’d, 49 Conn. App. 1 (1998) (with DISSENTING opinion), rev’d, 250 Conn. 581 (1999).

Late appeal. Claimant’s attorney argued he did not receive a copy of the decision until after the ten-day period had expired; however, the date notice is sent is the date the time period begins to run, and the certification shows that it went out 13 days before the appeal was filed. CRB does not have discretion to make exceptions; appeal dismissed. Supreme Court reversed CRB and held although ten day appeal period begins to run when notice is sent by the commissioner, statutory time period may be tolled if party wishing to appeal establishes, that through no fault of his own, he did not receive notice within ten days of the date that notice was sent.

Perrelli v. Stack, Inc., 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 211, 3243 CRB-3-95-12 (June 6, 1997).

CRB found that the claimant’s petition for review was filed twelve days after the trial commissioner’s decision was issued, and thus appeal must be dismissed as untimely under § 31-301(a). See also, Perrelli, § 31-294c. Subsequent decision at Perrelli, 3546 CRB-3-96-1 (June 4, 1998), supra.

Ayres v. United Methodist Homes of Connecticut, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 193, 3207 CRB-4-95-10, 3294 CRB-4-96-3 (May 20, 1997).

Claimant failed to appear at oral argument, and failed to file a brief or Reasons of Appeal in either matter. Although pro se claimants are accorded leniency regarding procedural rules of the CRB, the panel had no way of performing meaningful review here. Appeals dismissed pursuant to Practice Book § 4184A.

Harris v. Hartford Hospital, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 187, 3292 CRB-1-96-3 (May 16, 1997).

CRB dismissed the claimant’s petition for review which was filed over five months after the trial commissioner’s decision had been issued. The filing of a motion to correct after the ten-day appeal period has expired does not extend that appeal period.

Schiano v. Bliss Exterminating, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 189, 3315 CRB-4-96-4 (May 16, 1997).

While benefits due claimant as far back as 1989 remained unpaid, Second Injury Fund appealed commissioner’s ruling that it had unduly delayed payment and that it should pay a $25,000 attorney’s fee. Fund then requested extensions of time while awaiting transcript, which reportedly had not been received. After the claimant objected, the Fund admitted that it had received and then misplaced the transcript, and was currently waiting for a replacement. Held: Workers’ Compensation Act is remedial in nature, and relief should ensue as quickly and efficiently as possible. Lack of communication between attorneys at Fund and lack of organization in this case have led to unnecessary delay in these proceedings. Fund’s appeal dismissed, and attorney’s fees awarded to claimant for costs associated with appeal. Remanded to commissioner for determination of those costs under § 31-327(b). CRB also noted that requests for extensions of time should seek relief only through a date certain. Subsequent decisions in Schiano, 3436 CRB-4-96-10 (April 8, 1998), aff’d, 57 Conn. App. 406 (2000), § 31-293; Schiano, 4104 CRB-4-99-8 (February 21, 2001), rev’d, 260 Conn. 21 (2002), § 31-278, § 31-303, and § 31-300. Prior decision at Schiano, 1852 CRB-4-93-9 (December 7, 1994), aff’d, 57 Conn. App. 406 (2000), § 31-293, § 31-301. Appeal procedure.

Evans v. City of Shelton, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 155, 3108 CRB-4-95-6 (May 2, 1997), dismissed for lack of a final judgment, A.C. 17196 (January 14, 1998).

Late reasons for appeal make an appeal voidable, not void. No prejudice to claimant from respondent’s minor error, so CRB denied Motion to Dismiss. Chairman also declined to disqualify himself on the ground that the law firm representing the claimant has had repeated conflicts with him in another case. His appearance on the review panel was consistent with state case law regarding recusal and disqualification. See also, Evans, § 31-275(16), § 31-301. Factual findings, notes on Rules of Professional Conduct.

Hines v. Linc Scientific Imaging, 3037 CRB-8-95-3 (April 14, 1997).

CRB requires all parties to file a separate brief. However, pro se claimants generally are accorded leniency regarding procedural rules. As claimant’s Reasons of Appeal adequately explained her claims of error, panel denied respondents’ Motion to Dismiss appeal. Also, an issue not yet discussed at an informal hearing is not ripe for review. See also, Hines, § 31-315, § 31-308a.

Lirot v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming, 3400 CRB-2-96-8 (April 7, 1997).

Section 31-301(b) requires this board to review a trial commissioner’s decision on the record of the proceedings below. Because there was no formal hearing in this case, there were neither exhibits nor a transcript for CRB to review on appeal. Case remanded. Subsequent decision at Lirot, 4015 CRB-2-99-3 (March 13, 2000), aff’d, 62 Conn. App. 908 (2001)(per curiam), cert. denied, 257 Conn. 908 (2001), § 31-296.

Fusco v. J.C. Penney Company, 1952 CRB-4-94-1 (March 20, 1997).

Trier did not err when he denied Motion to Correct in part. Motions to Correct need not be granted unless findings are unsupported by evidence, they fail to include admitted or undisputed facts, or the corrections are immaterial because the outcome of the case would not be altered. See also, Knoblaugh, infra; Plitnick, infra.

Lestage v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., 3044 CRB-5-95-4 (March 19, 1997).

Appeal dismissed pursuant to Practice Book § 4184A as claimant failed to prosecute with proper diligence. Claimant failed to file a brief or appear at oral argument.

Spano v. Frank Teti Siding, 3181 CRB-6-95-10 (March 19, 1997).

Without any transcripts to substantiate the claimant’s contentions, CRB unable to engage in meaningful review and cannot properly consider this appeal in accordance with § 31-301. Therefore, claimant’s appeal dismissed.

In re: Veterans Memorial Medical Center, 3063 CRB-8-95-5 (March 14, 1997).

Four separate decisions. Please refer to notes on § 31-294d for background of VMMC cases. In these particular situations, two of the cases were accepted as compensable (Heck and Pirone), while the other two were dismissed by triers for lack of jurisdiction (Charest and Swift). All of these appeals should have been withdrawn before the three-day oral argument session on April 1-3, 1996. Respondents filed a motion for costs and fees against VMMC. Granted. As § 31-301(e) provides that the procedure in appealing a commissioner’s award is the same as that used in an appeal from the Superior Court to the Supreme Court, the CRB applied the Rules of Appellate Procedure, which allow the imposition of costs and fees against a party for presenting unwarranted or frivolous issues on appeal. See Practice Book § 4184B(4), (5), (8); § 4165.4.

Chuley v. Pratt & Whitney, 3375 CRB-3-96-7 (March 7, 1997).

Pro se claimant’s petition for review dismissed for failure to prosecute. Claimant’s appeal petition included on its face some indecipherable information. Claimant failed to appear at oral argument and documents filed the day of the scheduled CRB oral argument were either available prior to the trial commissioner’s decision, were part of the record below or indecipherable. Additionally, it does not appear the documents were provided to opposing counsel. CRB held even if the filings were to be considered as a motion to present additional evidence, the motion would be denied as claimant failed to meet criteria set forth in Admin. Reg. § 31-301-9.

Cavanaugh v. American Wire Corp., 3214 CRB-4-95-11 (March 4, 1997).

CRB dismissed appeal from trial commissioner’s order. Because the trial commissioner recused herself due to a conflict of interest, the trial commissioner should not have made any rulings or orders. The trial commissioner’s order is thus null and void, and as there is no valid decision from which to appeal, the appeal is dismissed.

Jencik v. Chief Automotive Systems, 3376 CRB-5-96-7 (February 28, 1997).

The respondents failed to file a brief and failed to appear at oral argument before this board. In addition, the respondents failed to file their reasons of appeal in a timely manner pursuant to § 31-301-2. Accordingly, by a bench ruling the CRB dismissed the respondents’ appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4184A.

Deming v. State/Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 3523 CRB-2-97-1 (February 26, 1997).

Appeal from trier’s dismissal of claimant’s § 31-290a claim. CRB has no statutory authority to hear or decide § 31-290a matters. See, Rondini, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 210, 1231 CRD-6-91-5 (December 4, 1992). Additionally, grounds for dismissal as claimant’s appeal was filed more than ten days after the trier’s Finding was issued.

Gamber v. Olin Mills, Inc., 3194 CRB-4-95-10 (February 19, 1997).

The respondents failed to file reasons of appeal, a motion to correct, or a brief, and did not appear at oral argument before this board. Accordingly, CRB dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4184A.

Falcone v. United Parcel Service, 3209 CRB-3-95-11 (February 11, 1997).

Claimant filed petition for review 30 days after decision was sent by commissioner; no explanation given for lateness. Also, no motion to correct or reasons of appeal. Even though claimant pro se, CRB dismissed appeal under Practice Book § 4184A.

Dowling v. Slotnik, 3062 CRB-4-95-5, 3277 CRB-4-96-2 (February 5, 1997), aff’d, rev’d and remanded in part, 244 Conn. 781 (1998)(with DISSENTING opinion).

Board ordinarily dismisses grounds for appeal first raised at oral argument, although issue briefly addressed here. Appeal filed timely, as tenth day of appeal period was Washington’s Birthday, a state holiday. Claimant filed two motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute with due diligence; the former, being untimely under Practice Book § 4056, was denied. The latter correctly noted that the respondents had not filed any documents in support of their appeal, including a Motion to Correct. Although the respondents lost their right to challenge any of the factual findings, the case was not dismissed. The respondents had also filed an earlier, premature appeal, which this board declined to allow them to withdraw; however, the CRB held their brief filed in support of the first appeal to apply to the second as well, noting the unusual procedural circumstances of the case. See also, Dowling, § 31-275(9), § 31-288, § 31-307. Subsequent decision at Dowling, 3468 CRB-4-96-11 (May 6, 1998), § 31-290, § 31-296, § 31-301. Appeal procedure, § 31-301(f).

Hickey v. E.J.C. Transportation, 3180 CRB-5-95-10 (February 5, 1997).

Respondents claimed entitlement to credit against future liability, as claimant settled with employer’s uninsured motorist carrier. Trial commissioner held that respondent could assert moratorium, but further hearings would have to be held to determine whether employer perfected claim and extent of credit, if any. Claimant appealed. Respondents moved to dismiss. Claimant agreed that his appeal was premature. Appeal dismissed.

Goodridge v. American Felt & Filter, 3151 CRB-2-95-8 (January 24, 1997).

No motion to correct, so findings must be accepted as uncontroverted on review. See also, Goodridge, § 31-349.

Jusiewicz v. Reliance Automotive, 3140 CRB-6-95-8 (January 24, 1997).

No motion to correct, so findings stand. August 17, 1995 petition for review timely; August 7, 1995 Corrected Finding and Award amended August 2, 1995 decision, thus superseding it as to the date the ten-day appeal period began. See also, Jusiewicz, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Matey v. Dember, 3153 CRB-5-95-8 (January 10, 1997), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 256 Conn. 456 (2001).

Motion to dismiss Fund appeals denied; although Fund did not file Reasons for Appeal, claimant did not file Motion to Dismiss within 10 days of the date the Reasons of Appeal were due. Therefore, their absence is deemed waived. This issue was not addressed in the Supreme Court’s decision. See also, Matey, § 31-315 and § 31-355(a). Prior decision at Matey, 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 104, 516 CRD-5-86 (June 14, 1988), appeal dismissed, 210 Conn. 626 (1989)(per curiam), § 31-278, § 31-310, Matey, 1189 CRD-5-91-3 (April 5, 1991), § 31-301. Appeal procedure. Subsequent decision at Matey, 3848 CRB-7-98-6 (July 7, 1999), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 256 Conn. 456 (2001), § 31-355(b), Matey, 4488 CRB-7-02-2, 4532 CRB-5-02-5 (May 14, 2003), appeal dismissed for failure to comply with Supreme Court’s directive, 85 Conn. App. 198 (2004).

Germosen v. Matlaw’s Food Products, 3099 CRB-7-95-5 (January 6, 1997).

Although absence of rulings on motions for extension of time and motion to correct made it hard to hold Second Injury Fund to precise deadlines regarding Reasons of Appeal, appellant still proceeded without diligence. No Reasons for Appeal or brief were filed, and Fund allowed confusion in case to continue through date of oral argument without attempting to augment the incomplete file or obtain rulings on its motions. Appeal dismissed.

Doyle v. New Haven, 3038 CRB-3-95-4 (January 3, 1997).

Failure to file Motion to Correct limits board to commissioner’s factual findings in reviewing decision. See also, Doyle, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Basurto v. State/Boneski Treatment Center, 3115 CRB-2-95-7 (December 24, 1996).

Commissioner ordered benefits sent directly to attorney because of questions about claimant’s competency. Attorney then sought to withdraw representation. Commissioner denied request, ordering him to continue receiving benefits for placement in interest-bearing escrow account, and to provide an accounting of benefits already received. Appeal then filed on behalf of both attorney and client. Respondent filed Motion to Dismiss. No Reasons of Appeal or brief were filed by the appellants, and no one appeared at oral argument. Dismissal granted for failure to prosecute with proper diligence.

Lathrope v. Teledyne Penn Union, 3491 CRB-4-96-12 (December 24, 1996).

CRB denied claimant’s Motion For Permission To Extend Appeal, Motion To Correct and Motion To Submit Additional Evidence. CRB noted that it lacked the authority to extend the time for filing appeals. The CRB also noted that if the claimant sought to file a Motion To Submit Additional Evidence she was free to do so.

Herwerth v. Groton, 3105 CRB-2-95-6 (December 24, 1996), aff’d, 45 Conn. App. 922 (1997)(per curiam).

CRB not required to grant timely motion to dismiss for late reasons of appeal. Claimant had filed a motion for extension of time, and filed reasons for appeal before denial of that motion was issued. Two week delay not shown to prejudice respondent. See also, Herwerth, § 31-296.

Fabian v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 3104 CRB-7-95-6 (December 23, 1996).

CRB granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the claimant’s appeal for late filing of reasons of appeal where the motion to dismiss was timely filed. See also, Fabian, § 31-315.

Bennings v. State/Dept. of Correction, 3213 CRB-4-95-11 (December 18, 1996).

CRB did not dismiss the claimant’s appeal for failure to file a legal brief, noting that the claimant, acting pro se, had filed reasons of appeal and a letter explaining his reasons of appeal. In addition, the claimant appeared at oral argument before this board. CRB also noted that the respondent employer did not file a legal brief or any motions or documents on appeal. See also, Bennings, supra, § 31-307.

O’Connor v. United Parcel Service, 3124 CRB-4-95-7 (December 18, 1996).

The claimant has failed to file reasons of appeal, a motion to correct, or a brief, and the claimant did not appear at oral argument before this board. As the claimant has neglected to actively pursue his appeal, CRB dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4184A.

Cooper v. Sisters of Mercy, 3218 CRB-6-95-11 (December 10, 1996).

Untimely reasons of appeal, motion to correct. Respondents moved to dismiss. Claimant then filed Reasons for Appeal and Motion to Correct. Commissioner ruled on motion to correct, denying all corrections; CRB presumes tardiness of motion waived. Panel noted that failure to file Motion to Correct would not make appeal void, but would limit appellant to findings in original decision. Late reasons of appeal, however, make an appeal voidable, provided Motion to Dismiss is timely filed. Respondents’ motion was late, so CRB denied Motion to Dismiss pro se claimant’s appeal. See also, Cooper, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Loomis v. Colchester Egg Farm, 3047 CRB-5-95-4 (December 10, 1996).

Commissioner is never required to file a memorandum of decision in conjunction with his award or dismissal under Reg. § 31-301-3; language of regulation is discretionary. Trial commissioner is generally not required to explain why he finds one witness more credible than another. See also, Loomis, § 31-308a.

Currin v. State/DMR Region 2, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 137, 2183 CRB-6-94-10 (November 27, 1996).

CRB dismissed the claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4055 where the claimant failed to file a motion to correct or a legal brief and did not appear at oral argument before this board. In addition, CRB explained that even if it were to consider the claimant’s appeal, the trial commissioner’s decision would be affirmed as the record supported the trial commissioner’s determination that the claimant was not temporarily totally disabled pursuant to § 31-307.

Jones v. Lillibridge, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 143, 3149 CRB-2-95-6 (November 27, 1996).

Pro se respondent attempted to raise issues on appeal. However, since he did not file a petition for review, he also did not file a Motion to Correct, thus limiting him to the trial commissioner’s findings, which supported total disability award. See also, Jones, § 31-291.

Brown v. Interstate Pallet Co., 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 64, 3064 CRB-3-95-2 (October 25, 1996).

Respondents moved to dismiss appeal on ground that Reasons of Appeal were untimely filed. CRB ruled that failure to file timely Reasons of Appeal makes the appeal voidable, but not void. Here, where Reasons for Appeal were arguably only three days late and no one was prejudiced by their tardiness, board opted to deny Motion to Dismiss. See also, Brown, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Coles v. Star, Inc., 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 67, 3239 CRB-7-95-12 (October 25, 1996).

CRB determined that without a transcript or findings of fact, it was unable to engage in meaningful review and could not properly consider this appeal in accordance with § 31-301. Accordingly, CRB remanded the matter to the trial commissioner for a formal hearing and decision. See also, Coles, § 31-279.

Martin v. Starlift Equipment Co., 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 61, 3103 CRB-3-95-6 (October 18, 1996).

Petition for review filed thirteen days after date on trial commissioner’s Finding and Award. Appeal must be filed within ten days after meaningful notice of the commissioner’s decision is sent to appellant. Respondents implicitly contended that notice was not sent out on the date of the Finding and Award. Finding of date notice was sent is necessary to gauge timeliness of appeal, so case remanded to trial commissioner for such a determination.

Santino v. Richard Auto Transport, 16 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 37, 3227 CRB-3-95-7 (October 9, 1996).

The employer failed to file reasons of appeal, a motion to correct, or a brief, and the employer did not appear at oral argument before CRB. Thus, the panel dismissed the employer’s appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4055.

Federchuck v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 476, 2298 CRB-2-95-2 (September 16, 1996).

Failure to file Motion to Correct or challenge legality of finding that claimant did not seek light duty work after a certain date means finding must remain intact. Similarly, factual basis of finding that claimant was not union employee cannot be challenged without Motion to Correct, as existing findings support that conclusion. See also, Federchuck, § 31-301. Factual findings, and § 31-294(a).

Norton v. James Fleming Trucking, Inc., 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 472, 2119 CRB-1-94-8 (September 16, 1996).

Appellant failed to file a brief. CRB noted it has discretion to dismiss appeal, although it did not do so here. See also, Norton, § 31-298.

Hall v. Gilbert & Bennett Mfg. Co., 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 459, 3139 CRB-7-95-8 (September 9, 1996), rev’d, 241 Conn. 282 (1997).

Supreme Court explained that CRB properly determined that it had jurisdiction to decide an appeal taken from the trial commissioner’s oral ruling. The court also discussed the issue of whether the CRB’s decision which remanded the case to the trial commissioner constituted an appealable final judgment. See also, Hall, § 31-349.

Altamura v. Altamura Landscaping, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 427, 2170 CRB-7-94-10 (September 3, 1996).

Respondents filed motion to dismiss on grounds that Reasons for Appeal were late under Admin. Reg. § 31-301-2. Motion denied: unclear that motion to dismiss was timely filed, and respondents showed no prejudice from late Reasons of Appeal. See also, Altamura, § 31-294c, and § 31-278.

Bailey v. State/Greater Hartford Community College, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 433, 3152 CRB-5-95-8 (September 3, 1996), appeal dismissed, A.C. 16397 (December 5, 1996).

Claimant filed motion to dismiss appeal on ground that petition for review was filed in wrong district office. Denied. Language in statute requiring appeal to be filed in office where award originated dates back to time when jurisdiction was vested in the district rather than in the commission as a whole. Under current framework, commissioners move about various districts, and jurisdiction is vested in Commission in general. Here, claim arose in First District, and was transferred to Fifth District when trial commissioner was reassigned there. Filing of appeal in First District not sufficient ground for dismissal. See also, Bailey, § 31-301. Factual findings (incomplete record overlooked in part). Subsequent decisions in Bailey, 3694 CRB-1-97-9 (January 12, 1999), aff’d in part, rev’d, in part 65 Conn. App. 592 (2001), § 31-298, § 31-301. Appeal procedure, and Bailey, 3922 CRB-2-98-10 (November 30, 1999), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 65 Conn. App. 592 (2001), § 31-300, § 31-307, § 31-284b, § 31-294d, § 31-301. Factual findings; Bailey, 3694 CRB-1-97-9 (January 12, 1999), supra and § 31-298.

Craft v. State/Dept. of Revenue Services, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 431, 3089 CRB-1-95-6 (September 3, 1996).

“Motion to Stay Appeal Time Limitation” construed as appeal notice. No documents filed to support appeal. Practice Book § 4055 dismissal.

Lapia v. Stratford, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 422, 3109 CRB-4-95-6 (August 29, 1996), rev’d, 47 Conn. App. 391 (1997).

The claimant appellee filed a “Motion for Default Judgment for Failure to Defend Appeal” based upon the respondent’s failure to file a timely brief. Motion denied, as no prejudice shown. See also, Lapia, § 31-327.

Thomas v. Cash Oil, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 410, 2272 CRB-3-95-1 (August 28, 1996).

The employer has failed to file reasons of appeal, a motion to correct, or a brief. As the employer has neglected to actively pursue its appeal, pursuant to a bench ruling CRB dismissed the employer’s appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4055.

Thornton v. Kabel, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 353, 3027 CRB-4-95-3 (June 26, 1996).

It is not the responsibility of the commissioner to cull out certain portions of the record which support corrections sought where appellant fails to refer to specific portions of the evidence. See also, Thornton, § 31-275(9).

Herbali v. Lyn-Jay International, 2194 CRB-1-94-11 (July 12, 1996).

The claimant failed to file a brief and has failed to appear at oral argument before this board. As the claimant neglected to actively pursue his appeal, pursuant to a bench ruling CRB dismissed the claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4055. NOTE: Dismissal vacated and appeal reopened (July 12, 1996). Appeal was subsequently withdrawn.

Bell v. Bridgeport Hospital, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 328, 3121 CRB-4-95-7 (June 24, 1996), appeal dismissed, A.C. 16192 (October 31, 1996).

Respondent’s appeal from trier’s granting of claimant’s Motion to Preclude dismissed. Appellant failed to file a brief or appear at oral argument.

Beloski v. Selmix-Alco, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 313, 2275 CRB-5-95-1 (June 21, 1996).

Nothing filed in support of appeal besides petition for review. Practice Book § 4055 dismissal.

Nichols v. United Technologies Corp./Sikorsky Aircraft, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 311, 2239 CRB-4-94-12 (June 21, 1996).

The Fund has failed to file a motion to correct or a brief, and has failed to appear at oral argument before this board. Accordingly, CRB dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4055.

Vega v. Waltsco, Inc., 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 307, 2078 CRB-2-94-6 (June 21, 1996), aff’d, 46 Conn. App. 298 (1997).

Appeal must be filed within ten days of entry of award, which period begins to run on day meaningful notice of decision is sent. Here, Finding and Award was dated May 26, 1994, on which day a copy was presumably sent to the claimant. Claimant’s attorney did not learn of the decision until June 3, however, and was unaware that his client had already received a copy in the mail until June 7. Petition for review was filed two days later. Held, meaningful notice was sent on May 26, 1994; § 31-300 requires a copy of the decision to be sent to each party, and “party” cannot be construed to exclude the claimant himself. Appeal dismissed.

Chase v. State/Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 292, 2185 CRB-2-94-9 (June 20, 1996), rev’d, 45 Conn. App. 499 (1997).

Claimant appealed from commissioner’s decision that claimant did not establish compensable injury; he also raised an issue that the CRB addressed in a prior appeal. See, Chase, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 181, 1305 CRD-2-91-9 (September 1, 1992), where the board affirmed the commissioner’s denial of the claimant’s Motion to Preclude. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal from that decision for lack of final judgment. Subsequently, our Supreme Court decided Pereira v. State, 228 Conn. 535 (1994). Held, although this board has abandoned the strict compliance rule since Pereira, it declined to overrule its prior decision in Chase. Board does not normally readdress questions decided or amenable to decision in earlier appeals, and its earlier decision became the law of the case. Supreme Court’s Pereira decision does not give the CRB authority to reopen prior decisions; Appellate Court might consider issue, however, once the case is ripe for appeal. Also, claimant’s failure to file Motion to Correct precluded challenge to commissioner’s factual findings. Appellate Court reversed, 45 Conn. App. 499 (1997), on the ground that claimant’s notice was sufficient to trigger the 20-day period within which the state had to contest compensability. Fact that plaintiff’s claim was subsequently dismissed on merits did not stop it from being a “bona fide” claim.

Cioffi v. Trumbull Mariot, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 297, 2209 CRB-4-94-11 (June 20, 1996).

As the claimant’s appeal was not filed within the time limits required by § 31-301(a), CRB dismissed it as untimely.

Jernigan v. Industrial Components, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 305, 3054 CRB-6-95-4 (June 20, 1996).

The claimant’s petition for review was not filed within the time limits required by § 31-301(a) and thus CRB dismissed it as untimely.

Rivera v. Novarro, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 285, 3013 CRB-5-95-3 (June 20, 1996).

Both claimant appellant and Second Injury Fund failed to actively prosecute their appeals with due diligence. Appeals dismissed.

Khazzaka v. The Torrington Company, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 273, 3330 CRB-5-96-4 (June 18, 1996).

Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss granted where appeal is the result of the trial commissioner’s ruling on a motion and there is no record available for appellate review. Subsequent decision at Khazzaka, 3508 CRB-5-96-12 (May 26, 1998), and Khazzaka, 3966 CRB-5-99-1 (March 2, 2000).

Eligio v. DiLauro Brothers, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 253, 2212 CRB-3-94-11 (May 24, 1996).

No Motion to Correct, so factual findings must remain intact. See also, Eligio, § 31-308(a).

Salvatore v. Salter’s Express Co., Inc., 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 238, 2184 CRB-5-94-10 (May 9, 1996).

As the Fund has failed to file a timely brief, CRB dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4055.

Howser v. Olsen Mobeck & Associates, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 221, 2250 CRB-6-94-12 (April 29, 1996).

Practice Book § 4055 dismissal; claimant failed to file Brief, Motion to Correct, Reasons of Appeal.

Pearston v. Carrier Corporation, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 196, 3167 CRB-8-95-9 (April 19, 1996).

The trial commissioner granted the Fund’s motion for an extension for the filing of a motion to correct, however, the Fund never filed a motion to correct. Moreover, the Fund did not file its reasons of appeal until it submitted its brief approximately four months after its petition for review had been filed. As the Fund has neglected to actively pursue its appeal, CRB dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4055. (Fund reprimanded because at oral argument the Fund’s representative admitted that the Fund was in possession of the transcripts prior to filing the motions for extension of time in which motions the Fund contended that it had not yet received said transcripts.)

Trankovich v. Frenish, Inc. d/b/a Chamberlain’s Ambulance, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 194, 3053 CRB-3-95-4 (April 19, 1996), rev’d, 47 Conn. App. 628 (1998).

Respondents filed a motion to dismiss pro se claimant’s appeal based upon the claimant’s failure to prosecute her appeal with due diligence. CRB issued a bench ruling denying the respondents’ motion to dismiss. Reversed on other grounds. See also, Trankovich, § 31-310.

Redick v. State/Dept. of Income Maintenance, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 176, 2152 CRB-1-94-9 (March 22, 1996).

Appeal dismissed for failure to actively pursue appeal where claimant failed to file motion to correct and filed a late brief (two days prior to CRB hearing).

Francetic v. Westport, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 169, 3246 CRB-4-96-1 (February 16, 1996).

Trial commissioner vacated his decision. Therefore, resulting appeal dismissed for mootness.

Kulhawik v. Ace Beauty Supply, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 159, 2116 CRB-2-94-8 (February 1, 1996).

No reasons of appeal filed; appeal defective, subject to dismissal despite lack of objection by respondents on that ground. Defect can be considered in decision. See also, Kulhawik, § 31-308a.

Cyr v. Domino’s Pizza, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 151, 2168 CRB-1-94-10 (January 26, 1996), aff’d, 45 Conn. App. 199 (1997).

Untimely appeal. Timeliness depends on date meaningful notice was sent. Appellant allegedly received notice of decision five weeks after date of decision; however, delivery by certified mail was attempted twice during first five days following decision at the address provided by claimant’s attorney. Meaningful notice was sent on date of decision; appeal dismissed.

Mendoza v. Raposo, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 155, 2172 CRB-7-94-10 (January 26, 1996).

Respondent improperly filed reasons of appeal with district office, late Motion to Correct, and a late brief, which prejudiced the claimant. Although board went on to consider merits, counsel was admonished and strongly advised to read CRB notices more carefully in future. (Case was affirmed on merits, as basis for findings existed in evidence.)

Ricigliano v. Rex Forge, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 142, 2190 CRB-6-94-10 (January 18, 1996), dismissed, lack of final judgment, A.C. 15655 (May 2, 1996).

CRB denied motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute (late brief) due to compelling circumstances.

Seltenreich v. Stone & Webster, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 135, 2196 CRB-3-94-10 (January 17, 1996).

Failure to file Motion to Correct limited CRB to commissioner’s findings, which supported decision.

Garitta v. East Haven, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 117, 2258 CRB-3-95-1 (January 11, 1996).

CRB dismissed the Fund’s appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4055 where the Fund failed to file a motion to correct or a brief, and failed to appear at oral argument before this board.

Almonte v. ITT Sealectro, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 99, 2222 CRB-6-94-12 (December 11, 1995).

CRB dismissed appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4055 where neither reasons for appeal nor brief filed by appellant.

Taubl v. Harry Damberg, Inc., 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 97, 2165 CRB-7-94-9 (December 11, 1995).

The claimant failed to file his reasons for appeal or a brief, and failed to appear at oral argument before this board. As the claimant neglected to actively pursue his appeal, CRB dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4055.

Totten v. Tyree Brothers Environmental Services, Inc., 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 101, 2240 CRB-2-94-12 (December 11, 1995).

CRB dismissed the claimant’s appeal because the respondents’ voluntary compliance with the claimant’s request for production had resulted in the claimant’s appeal being moot.

Ferguson v. State/Norwich State Hospital, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 95, 3045 CRB-2-95-3 (December 8, 1995).

CRB dismissed the claimant’s appeal from the trial commissioner’s approval of the Form 36 which was based upon an informal hearing. Where there is no written or printed record of the proceedings before the trial commissioner and no findings of fact, the Compensation Review Board cannot properly consider the appeal in accordance with § 31-301-1.

Mitchell v. Timex Corp., 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 92, 2164 CRB-5-94-10 (December 8, 1995).

Pro se claimant/appellant filed portions of the transcript and some copies of exhibits on the day before the CRB oral argument. Even if CRB were to consider this to be her legal brief and reasons of appeal, it was nevertheless late, and therefore appeal dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Raucci v. W.H. Brady Co., 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 86, 2201 CRB-3-94-11 (December 7, 1995).

Late appeal dismissal; meaningful notice sent more than ten days before petition for review filed.

Lee v. State/Dept. of Correction, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 68, 2130 CRB-5-94-8 (December 6, 1995).

Nothing filed in support of appeal; case dismissed under P. B. § 4055.

Giannotti v. Stop & Shop Companies, Inc., 2018 CRB-3-94-4 (December 5, 1995).

CRB dismissed the respondent’s appeal because it was not filed within the time limit prescribed by § 31-301(a) C.G.S. CRB explained that a state holiday would only extend the time period for filing an appeal where it occurred on the final day of the appeal period.

Jablonowski v. Grande East Construction, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 61, 2095 CRB-2-94-7 (December 5, 1995).

No documents filed in support of appeal, including brief. Dismissed pursuant to Practice Book § 4055.

Draughn v. Wallace Int’l Silversmiths, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 374, 2290 CRB-3-93-11 (October 4, 1995), aff’d, 42 Conn. App. 910 (1996)(per curiam).

Claimant’s petition for review was filed three months late, therefore dismissed as untimely because it was not filed within the time limits required by § 31-301(a).

Gostyla v. Masonic Home & Hospital, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 372, 2156 CRB-8-94-9 (October 4, 1995).

Late petition for review; no documents to support appeal. P. B. § 4055.

Mellor v. Pleasure Valley Mobile Homes, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 378, 3018 CRB-2-95-3 (October 4, 1995).

Late appeal; failure to prosecute pursuant to P. B. § 4055.

Bourassa v. State/Dept. of Correction, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 348, 2060 CRB-2-94-5 (September 22, 1995).

State indicated in Reasons of Appeal that it was challenging findings based on evidence, but did not file a Motion to Correct or brief. Appeal dismissed; Practice Book § 4055.

Allingham v. Burns International Security, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 333, 1977 CRB-1-94-2 (September 20, 1995).

See also, Allingham, § 31-298 (question of timeliness of appeal).

Spatafore v. Yale University, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 310, 2011 CRB-3-94-4 (September 14, 1995), aff’d, 239 Conn. 408 (1996).

Commissioner attempted to withdraw his decision as alternative to ruling on Motion to Correct. Held, such action not permissible without request from parties; commissioner no longer had jurisdiction over determination of issues on appeal, and irregularity that would invalidate award as a whole was not present here. Respondent’s Motion to Correct deemed denied for purposes of appeal, as respondent prevailed on merits anyway. See also, Spatafore, § 31-275(1).

McNerney v. New Haven, 2098 CRB-3-94-7 (September 5, 1995).

CRB denied motion to dismiss the respondent’s appeal based upon the respondent’s failure to prosecute its appeal with due diligence due to compelling circumstances regarding attorney’s hospitalization and due to claimant’s willingness to reschedule in order to allow respondent time to file a brief.

Hess v. Connecticut Veterinary Hospital, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 235, 2255 CRB-6-94-12 (August 10, 1995).

Appeal dismissed pursuant to Practice Book § 4055; late petition for review, no other documents filed. CRB had stated at oral argument it would dismiss appeal if not withdrawn. Motions to dismiss moot.

Murano v. General Dynamics Corporation/Electric Boat Division, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 226, 2195 CRB-8-94-10 (August 7, 1995).

Second Injury Fund’s appeal from the trier’s Finding and Award dismissed as moot in light of the trier’s granting of the appellant’s Motion to Reopen and Vacate, and Motion to Correct.

Collier v. Kingswood Oxford School, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 184, 2213 CRB-6-94-11 (June 29, 1995).

CRB dismissed claimant’s appeal which was filed eleven days after Finding and Award had been issued by commissioner. Claimant contended that his attorney did not timely notify him of the Finding and Award, but did not contend that his attorney did not timely receive the decision.

Sawyer v. Spring Industries, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 178, 2085 CRB-2-94-6 (June 29, 1995).

Employer filed late appeal to CRB and did not appear at oral argument before CRB. CRB rejected employer’s contention that only “business days” should be counted in the ten day appeal period. Employer did not contend that he received trial commissioner’s decision in an untimely manner, therefore there is no need to remand on this issue.

Lee v. ABB Combustion Engineering, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 157, 2134 CRB-1-94-8 (June 27, 1995).

Where commissioner did not reduce decision to writing until three months after oral denial of motion, appeal period began running on date written decision issued. See also, Lee, § 31-298.

Velez v. Gravure, 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 50, 1997 CRB-3-94-2 (May 4, 1995).

Untimely filing of motion to appeal trier’s finding dismissed. In addition, no reasons for appeal, brief or motion to correct was filed. Appeal dismissed.

Pereira v. Taylor & Fenn Co., 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 16, 1816 CRB-1-93-8 (April 28, 1995).

Claims raised in appellee’s brief not considered; no petition for review or Reasons of Appeal were filed by appellee.

Fecto v. Kelly’s Contracting, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 330, 1921 CRB-1-93-12 (April 26, 1995).

Claimant agreed to withdraw appeal and accepted $1,700 in satisfaction of his claim; when it was discovered that the stipulation lacked a necessary date, the claimant refused to date the stipulation. Held, claimant does not have license to ignore his obligation under the settlement and keep the respondents’ money. Claimant ordered to date stipulation or return full amount paid by respondents plus ten percent interest.

Cruz v. Sheraton Hartford Hotel, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 308, 1560 CRB-1-92-11 (April 25, 1995).

Where no prejudice shown, CRB did not exercise its discretion to set aside the decision for Second Injury Fund’s failure to defend appeal with due diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4055. See also, Cruz, § 31-300.

Bell v. U. S. Home Care Certified of Connecticut, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 294, 1792 CRB-1-93-8 (April 21, 1995), aff’d, 40 Conn. App. 934 (1996)(per curiam).

Failure to file Motion to Correct limits CRB to findings of commissioner. See also, Bell, § 31-275(1).

Brockett v. Branford Paving, Inc., 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 271, 1840 CRB-3-93-9 (April 19, 1995).

Appeal dismissed for failure to comply with § 31-301(a) and for failure to prosecute with due diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4055. See also, Brockett, § 31-301-9. Additional evidence.

Grey v. Greenwood Health Care Center, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 273, 1854 CRB-1-93-9 (April 19, 1995).

Appeal dismissed where appellant failed to file reasons for appeal, a brief or a motion to correct. Additionally, CRB has broad discretion in choosing to grant or deny continuances. CRB denied request for continuance made at oral argument.

McBreairty v. D.B.D., Inc., 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 259, 1781 CRB-7-93-7 (April 18, 1995).

Failure to file reasons of appeal pursuant to Administrative Regulation § 31-301-2, along with failure to file brief, led to dismissal of claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute. See Practice Book § 4055. See also, McBreairty, § 31-307b.

Wright v. Institute of Professional Practice, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 262, 1790 CRB-3-93-8 (April 18, 1995).

Failure to file Motion to Correct limits CRB to commissioner’s findings. See also, Wright, § 31-308(a).

O’Connor v. United Parcel Service, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 204, 1741 CRB-4-93-5 (March 30, 1995).

Appeal from denial of further § 31-308a benefits. Petition for review was filed fourteen days after entry of Finding and Dismissal; claimant received decision nine days before filing of appeal. Held, respondents entitled to raise this defense in brief because subject matter jurisdiction of CRB implicated. Held, Appellate Court decision in Conaci, 36 Conn. App. 298 (1994), mandates that ten-day period begins to run on date party wanting to appeal is sent meaningful notice of commissioner’s decision. Question as to whether CRB has power to make finding as to date notice sent; as decision on merits required remand, case also remanded for finding as to date notice sent by commissioner.

Maio v. L.G. Defelice, Inc., 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 197, 1734 CRB-5-93-5 (March 22, 1995).

Arguments in Reasons of Appeal deemed abandoned when neither briefed nor raised at oral argument. See also, Maio, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Dawson v. J.C. Higgins Corp., 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 190, 2122 CRB-3-94-8 (March 21, 1995).

Appeal petition or papers in support of an appeal must exist in order for CRB to have jurisdiction. CRB vacated their own bench ruling granting respondents’ Motion to Dismiss where only motion to correct was filed and no petition for review or other papers in support of an appeal were filed.

Baccielo v. Business Products, Inc., 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 163, 1732 CRB-4-93-5 (March 9, 1995).

Claimant argued commissioner-ordered medical examination improper in brief, but did not object to order when given, and did not raise issue in Motion to Correct or Reasons of Appeal. Thus, CRB declined to address issue further. (Note 1.) See also, Baccielo, § 31-275(1).

Scoville v. Enfield Honda, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 161, 1767 CRB-1-93-6 (March 8, 1995).

Claimant’s appeal dismissed as untimely where appeal was filed twenty-three days after Finding and Dismissal had been issued, and where claimant did not contend that he received commissioner’s decision in an untimely manner.

Calderwood v. Milford, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 154, 2253 CRB-3-95-1 (March 1, 1995) (Dismissal order).

Denial of motion for sanctions vacated by trial commissioner after petition for review filed; appeal dismissed for mootness.

Esquillin v. Pinto Lavado Enterprises, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 148, 1914 CRB-2-93-12 (February 1, 1995).

Appeal dismissed pursuant to Practice Book § 4055 where appellant failed to file motion to correct, reasons of appeal, or brief.

Green v. Labor Force of America, Inc., 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 146, 1908 CRB-3-93-11 (February 1, 1995).

Appeal dismissed pursuant to Practice Book § 4055 where employer/appellant failed to timely file a brief.

Latulippe v. Derekseth Homes, Inc., 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 140, 1839 CRB-1-93-9 (February 1, 1995).

Appeal dismissed where claimant failed to file a brief or appear at oral argument before the CRB.

Krauss v. Beebe Woodworking, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 126, 1915 CRB-2-93-12 (January 31, 1995).

Appeal dismissed by CRB bench ruling for failure to prosecute with due diligence where employer failed to file reasons for appeal, a brief, or a motion to correct.

Sargent v. Rybczyk Plumbing & Heating, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 128, 1974 CRB-6-94-2 (January 31, 1995).

Appellant has burden to provide CRB with adequate record for review. See Practice Book § 4061. See also, Sargent, § 31-300 and § 31-301. Factual findings.

Duchesneau v. Cornucopia Natural Foods, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 104, 1993 CRB-2-94-3 (January 25, 1995).

Appeal dismissed pursuant to Practice Book § 4055 where the respondents failed to file their reasons for appeal, a brief, or a motion to correct, and did not appear at oral argument before the CRB.

Kaczynski v. FCD Corporation/Mark IV, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 102, 1954 CRB-3-94-1 (January 25, 1995).

Appeal dismissed where the claimant failed to file his reasons for appeal, a brief, or a motion to correct, and where the claimant did not appear at oral argument before this board.

Eldridge v. Transport Drivers, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 75, 2229 CRB-2-94-12 (January 4, 1995).

Appeal dismissed absent a record of the trial proceedings wherein respondents’ Form 36 was approved. See also, Eldridge, § 31-296, Voluntary agreements (discontinuation of payments).

Landry v. Transtar, Inc., 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 66, 1971 CRB-2-94-2 (December 28, 1994).

Trier’s ruling off the record on a Motion to Quash does not allow for an adequate appellate review. Remanded in order to produce a written or printed record.

Lennon v. Genest Subaru Motors, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 63, 1589 CRB-5-92-12 (December 28, 1994).

Appeal dismissed where motion to dismiss for failure to file a brief within the time set out in the Compensation Review Board’s calendar, is timely filed. See also, Lennon § 31-308a. Additional compensation.

Harper v. Hartford, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 58, 1600 CRB-1-92-12 (December 27, 1994).

Appeal from dismissal of anxiety disorder dismissed where appellee’s motion to dismiss for failure to file timely reasons for appeal is timely filed. See, Sager v. GAB Business Services, Inc., 11 Conn. App. 693 (1987).

Fitzgerald v. State/Whiting, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 56, 2215 CRB-8-94-11 (December 21, 1994).

Appeal from informal disfigurement evaluation dismissed where CRB has no written or printed record of proceedings below to review.

Schiano v. Bliss Exterminating, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 45, 1852 CRB-4-93-9 (December 7, 1994).

Claimant made motion for default judgment for lack of diligence in defending appeal where Second Injury Fund filed copy of trial brief rather than appellee’s brief two days before oral argument, thus prejudicing claimant. CRB did not set aside judgment pursuant to Practice Book § 4055, but did grant motion to strike brief of Fund and prohibited counsel from raising new issues at oral argument pursuant to Practice Book § 4018. See also, Schiano, § 31-293. Subsequent decisions in Schiano, 3315 CRB-4-96-4 (May 16, 1997), § 31-301. Appeal procedure; Schiano, 3436 CRB-4-96-10 (April 8, 1998), aff’d, 57 Conn. App. 406 (2000), § 31-293; Schiano, 4104 CRB-4-99-8 (February 21, 2001), rev’d, 260 Conn. 21 (2002), § 31-278, § 31-303, and § 31-300.

Hebert v. RWA Roofing & Sheet Metal, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 43, 1750 CRB-2-93-6, 1899 CRB-2-93-11, 2129 CRB-2-94-8 (December 6, 1994).

Tapes and stenographic notes of formal hearing were lost, precluding appellant from providing necessary transcript. Held, CRB powerless to perform meaningful review; matter remanded for further proceedings on principal employer issue. As compensability finding was not appealed, § 31-355 order against Second Injury Fund stands. See also, Hebert, § 31-291, § 31-301. Appeal procedure, and § 31-355(b).

Capasso v. Fusco Corporation, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 30, 1622 CRB-3-93-1, 1920 CRB-3-93-11 (November 8, 1994).

It is not the duty of the Compensation Review Board or the trial commissioner to cull through the evidentiary record to ascertain what evidence may support corrections sought by the appellant. See also, Capasso § 31-308a Additional compensation.

Smith v. Capiezello, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 37, 1712 CRB-2-93-4 (November 8, 1994).

Trier’s findings, even if disputed, will not be altered where the legal conclusion would remain the same despite the corrections. See also, Smith § 31-275(1) and § 31-301. Factual findings.

Plitnick v. Knoll Pharmaceuticals, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 26, 1699 CRB-8-93-4 (November 7, 1994).

Corrections sought by appellant would not alter the findings of the trial commissioner where most of the corrections sought consist of statements in depositions taken out of context and without a commissioner’s assessment as to credibility. See also, Plitnick § 31-275(1) and § 31-301. Factual findings.

Burke v. Abacus Transfer & Storage, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 19, 1782 CRB-3-93-7 (November 3, 1994).

Neither reasons for appeal nor brief filed by appellant; although motion for extension of time to file Motion to Correct filed, Motion to Correct itself not filed. Further, no one appeared at oral argument. Appeal dismissed for failure to prosecute with proper diligence. Practice Book § 4055.

Wilkinson v. General Dynamics Corporation/Electric Boat Division, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 11, 1605 CRB-2-92-12 (November 3, 1994).

CRB will not disturb finding where corrections sought in motion to correct contradict supported facts found by trial commissioner. See also, Wilkinson § 31-310.

Horta v. American Rental Centers, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 400, 1822 CRB-5-93-8 (September 9, 1994).

Petition for review filed twenty-seven (27) days after entry of the award clearly untimely. Additionally, appellant failed to file any additional appellate documents or appear on date of scheduled oral argument. Such a lack of diligence constitutes grounds for dismissal.

Vigneri v. Utility Industrial Company, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 402, 1433 CRB-2-92-6 (September 9, 1994).

Where appellant fails to file a brief before the CRB, issues raised on appeal are deemed abandoned. See also, Vigneri § 31-299b and § 31-315.

Hutchinson v. C. Cowles & Company, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 387, 1934 CRB-3-93-12 (August 29, 1994).

Issues raised on appeal moot where trier vacates his finding.

Hirth v. United Parcel Service, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 353, 1497 CRB-1-92-8 (August 2, 1994).

Issues raised in reasons for appeal that are not briefed are deemed abandoned. See also, Hirth § 31-298.

Medina v. New England Wrecker Service, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 332, 1696 CRB-2-93-4 (July 5, 1994).

Appeal dismissed for failure to prosecute where appellant failed to file reasons of appeal, a brief, or appear at scheduled appellate hearing.

Montagna v. Milford Hospital, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 319, 2072 CRB-3-94-6 (June 30, 1994).

Appeal dismissed for failure to file within the time prescribed by statute.

Garrison v. Brown, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 310, 1706 CRB-2-93-4 (June 17, 1994).

Appeal dismissed pursuant to Practice Book § 4055 where appeal record only contains a petition for review.

Micklos v. Iseli Company, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 302, 1450 CRB-5-92-7 (June 17, 1994).

CRB found hearing loss claim timely filed. However, extent of disability and trier’s finding that no hearing loss was sustained during claimed period affirmed as appellant failed to provide CRB with an adequate record for review. See also, Micklos § 31-294c.

Orlando v. Makula, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 296, 1556 CRB-3-92-11 (June 13, 1994).

See, Orlando § 31-301. Factual findings and § 31-307.

Freeman v. Hull Dye & Print, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 259, 1516 CRB-5-92-9 (June 2, 1994), rev’d, 39 Conn App. 717 (1995).

The CRB dismissed widow’s appeal on the basis that her appeal was not timely filed. The Appellate Court reversed and remanded the matter back to the CRB for a determination as to whether the time requirements of § 31-301(a) were satisfied consistent with the Appellate Court’s previous ruling in Conaci v. Hartford Hospital, 36 Conn. App. 298 (1994). See also, Freeman, § 31-275(15) and § 31-294c.

Flowers v. Benny’s of Connecticut, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 162, 1527 CRB-2-92-10 (April 26, 1994).

Challenge to denial of motion to correct must fail where corrections sought would not alter legal conclusion. See also, Flowers § 31-275(1), § 31-298 and § 31-301. Factual findings.

Messier v. General Dynamics Corporation/Electric Boat Division, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 157, 1495 CRB-2-92-8 (April 26, 1994).

Issue raised as to applicable compensation rate for occupational disease claim rendered moot and cross appeal dismissed. Trier’s ruling on appellant’s motion to correct obliterated any controversy with respect to appellant’s claim. See also, Messier § 31-308(b) and § 31-308(c).

Vetro v. Banton Dry Wall, Inc., 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 154, 1316 CRD-3-91-10 (April 22, 1994).

Employer’s appeal without merit where issue presented on appeal is from a nonexistent ruling by the trial commissioner. See also, Vetro, § 31-298 and § 31-301-9. Additional evidence.

Pothier v. Stanley-Bostitch/The Bostitch Company, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 153, 1850 CRB-3-93-9 (April 15, 1994).

Appeal dismissed where trier vacates finding that was the subject of the underlying action from which the appeal was taken.

Perkins v. Rudy Fogg & Son, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 241, 1697 CRB-2-93-4 (March 28, 1994).

Appeal dismissed for failure to prosecute with due diligence where no reasons for appeal or brief was filed and appellant failed to appear at oral argument.

Smith v. Boland, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 234, 1502 CRB-7-92-9 (March 28, 1994).

CRB bound by trier’s findings, where findings are supported by evidence, absent the filing of a motion to correct. See also, Smith, § 31-291.

Gomes v. O & G Industries, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 232, 1610 CRB-4-92-12 (March 23, 1994).

Appeal from oral ruling granting approval of a Form 36 dismissed. Absent a written or printed record, the CRB cannot adequately consider an appeal.

Mansfield v. State/Dept. of Correction, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 226, 1388 CRB-1-92-3 (March 23, 1994).

Appeal dismissed pursuant to § 31-301(a) as it was not filed within statutory time period. See also, Mansfield, § 31-308(b)(c).

DeLucia v. Modena, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 212, 1471 CRB-3-92-7 (March 15, 1994).

An appellant who fails to take a timely appeal cannot challenge a commissioner’s Finding and Award by taking a timely appeal from a subsequent Supplemental Finding and Award. See also, DeLucia, § 31-275(16)[formerly 31-275(8)] and § 31-299b.

Haugh v. Leake & Nelson,12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 201, 1421 CRB-2-92-5 (March 15, 1994).

Claimant’s attempt to reassert claim for entitlement to a higher compensation rate previously before CRB properly rejected by commissioner. See, § 31-310, Haugh v. Leake & Nelson, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 148, 1066 CRD-8-90-7 (June 5, 1991). See also, Haugh, § 31-284b, § 31-300 and § 31-307.

Schena v. State/Connecticut Correctional Institute, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 75, 1530 CRB-8-92-10 (February 3, 1994).

Issues not briefed are deemed abandoned. See also, Schena, § 31-294c.

Menard v. East Windsor, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 62, 1400 CRB-1-92-3 (February 1, 1994).

Factual findings affirmed where appeal mounts a wholesale attack on findings and no motion to correct, transcript of evidence, or brief is filed.

Carter v. Travelers Insurance Company, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 51, 1599 CRB-1-92-12 (January 26, 1994).

Appeal dismissed for failure to prosecute where no reasons of appeal, motion to correct or brief is filed. Further, appellant’s request that CRB reconsider dismissal denied.

Divita v. Thames Valley Steel, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 50, 1541 CRB-2-92-10 (January 26, 1994).

Where the only document submitted was a petition for review, appeal dismissed for failure to prosecute.

McNulty v. Stamford, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 32, 1332 CRD-7-91-10 (January 26, 1994), rev’d, 37 Conn. App. 835 (1995).

CRB considered various motions and petitions for review alleging procedural defects. CRB denied, dismissed or held rulings on motions harmless error. See also, McNulty, § 31-301-9. Additional evidence, § 31-306, § 7-433c (where appellate court reversed CRB and held that the second injury fund was not liable to municipalities for payments pursuant to § 7-433c).

Mingrone v. Burndy Corporation, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 19, 1403 CRB-7-92-3 (January 13, 1994).

CRB rejected respondents’ criticism of CRB’s prior decision remanding this appeal. CRB directed trier to grant motion to preclude as well as to conduct any other proceedings necessary to resolve disputed issues relevant to dependent widow’s claim for compensation. Remand was neither “inappropriate” nor “merely delayed the process of appellate review.” See, Mingrone, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 252, 1109 CRD-7-90-9 (November 21, 1991). Also See, Mingrone, § 31-294c.

Discuillo v. Stone & Webster, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 1, 1366 CRD-2-91-12 (January 4, 1994).

Issues raised on appeal moot where trier withdrew his Finding and Award.

Wilson v. F.J. Dahill, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 298, 1873 CRB-3-93-10 (December 14, 1993).

Issues raised by appeal moot and appeal dismissed where trial commissioner vacates his written decision.

Taylor v. Madrigal Audio Labs, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 290, 1545 CRB-8-92-11 (December 8, 1993).

Appeal dismissed for failure to file petition for review within ten days where trier’s decision is received within the original ten day appeal period. But See, Conaci v. Hartford Hospital, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 184, 1263 CRD-1-91-7 (September 24, 1993), rev’d, 36 Conn. App. 298 (1994).

Milardo v. Shuck Petroleum, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 279, 1559 CRB-8-92-11 (November 22, 1993).

CRB granted respondents’ motion to dismiss appeal as claimant’s brief was untimely filed. Brief was filed only four days prior to oral argument. See also, Milardo, § 31-301-9. Additional evidence.

Almahdi v. State/Somers Correctional Institute, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 251, 1355 CRD-2-91-12 (November 10, 1993).

Appeal dismissed as untimely where appeal is filed beyond the tenth day and there is no indication the trier’s written decision was not received within the ten-day appeal period nor was an explanation offered justifying filing beyond the time requirements contained in § 31-301(a).

Sinkowski v. Continental Auto, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 243, 1398 CRB-8-92-3 (November 9, 1993).

Appeal dismissed where claimant fails to file reasons of appeal, a brief, or appear at oral argument before the Compensation Review Board.

Lightborne v. Stamford, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 218, 1550 CRB-7-92-11 (November 1, 1993).

Appeal dismissed pursuant to Practice Book § 4055 as appellant’s failure to timely file its brief unreasonably prejudiced the appellee in its defense to the appeal.

Marshall v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 204, 1317 CRD-1-91-10 (September 27, 1993).

Motion to dismiss for lack of final judgment filed by respondents following claimant’s appeal from the trier’s ruling denying claimant’s motion to preclude, dismissed. Statutory language provides CRB with authority to hear and decide rulings on motions to preclude. See also, Marshall, § 31-294c. Subsequent decision at Marshall, 3623 CRB-1-97-6 (August 20, 1998), aff’d, 55 Conn. App. 902 (1999)(per curiam), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 904 (1999), § 31-294c.

Anderson v. State/UConn Health Center, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 197, 1318 CRD-6-91-10 (September 23, 1993).

Factual findings must stand where respondents attack the quality of evidence without reference to specified transcript pages or authoritative cite. See also, Anderson, § 31-275(1).

Conaci v. Hartford Hospital, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 184, 1263 CRD-1-91-7 (September 14, 1993), rev’d, 36 Conn. App. 298 (1994).

Appeal petition must be filed within ten days after notice to parties of the entry of a written decision where parties receive decision within the ten day appeal period. When a party does not receive notice of a written decision within the original ten day appeal period, the time for filing the appeal is extended. Here, notice was received on the eighth day and there was no explanation as to why the appeal could not be filed within the ten day appeal period. CRB dismissed appeal as untimely. Appellate Court reversed CRB and held appeal period begins to run on the day on which the party wishing to appeal is sent meaningful notice of the trial commissioner’s decision. Commission records must disclose when notice is sent.

Lederman v. Friendly Ice Cream Corporation, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 180, 1420 CRB-5-92-5 (September 3, 1993).

Appeal dismissed for failure to prosecute where claimant failed to file a brief or appear before the CRB at a scheduled CRB hearing date. See also, Lederman, § 31-301-9.

Whalen v. General Building Supply Company, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 177, 1294 CRD-1-91-9 (September 3, 1993).

A Motion to Correct filed more than eight months after the issuance of a finding was clearly untimely filed. Also, Motion to Correct failed to cite where evidentiary support could be found for the corrections sought. See also, Whalen, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Petta v. Waterbury Hospital, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 161, 1310 CRD-5-91-9 (August 23, 1993).

Record on review inadequate where parties failed to order transcript of proceedings below. See also, Petta, § 31-298, § 31-299b, § 31-300 and § 31-308a.

St. Amour v. General Dynamics Corporation/Electric Boat Division, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 146, 1286 CRD-2-91-8 (August 10, 1993).

Remanded as CRB cannot engage in any meaningful review without all of the transcripts and exhibits from earlier proceedings below. See also, St. Amour, § 31-294c.

Flynn v. State/Dept. of Mental Health, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 129, 1602 CRB-1-92-12 (June 16, 1993).

Matter remanded as there is no record of the proceedings below nor was the “agreement of the parties” to which the trier refers to in his finding ever signed by the parties.

Brophy v. Bridgeport Hospital, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 112, 1643 CRB-4-93-2 (June 9, 1993).

Appeal dismissed as claimant failed to comply with statutory time frame for filing an appeal.

Lapoint v. Bozzuto’s, Inc., 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 117, 1726 CRB-5-93-4 (June 9, 1993).

Appeal petitions dismissed as trier vacated prior ruling and finding. Issues which arguably may be raised by appeal petitions are now moot.

Patterson v. Carolina Freight, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 115, 1711 CRB-3-93-4 (June 9, 1993).

Ten-day statutory deadline inapplicable even though claimant’s appeal was filed late as appeal was from an oral ruling as a result of an informal hearing. Remanded for further proceedings absent a written or printed record.

Ward v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 110, 1735 CRB-1-93-5 (June 4, 1993).

Trier’s granting of respondents’ Motion to Vacate Finding renders appeal moot as there exists no underlying action from which an appeal may be taken.

Hargatai v. Copy Data, Inc., 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 106, 1475 CRB-4-92-7 (June 2, 1993).

Appeal dismissed for failure to prosecute as appellant failed to file appellate documents in a timely fashion. Filing documents three days prior to date of scheduled oral argument does not persuade CRB to consider documents timely. See Practice Book § 4055.

Warchola v. U.S. Gypsum Specialists, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 108, 1444 CRB-1-92-6 (June 2, 1993).

Remanded for further proceedings as trier issued a finding after an informal hearing. A record must be established before the CRB can review issues which may possibly be raised on appeal.

Guerrera v. Times Microwave Corporation, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 104, 1430 CRB-8-92-6 (May 27, 1993).

CRB lacks jurisdiction over petition for review filed beyond statutorily mandated time requirement. Also, where appellant fails to file reasons of appeal or brief, appeal dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Practice Book § 4055.

Jones v. Middletown Mfg., 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 56, 1296 CRD-8-91-9 (April 5, 1993).

Appeal dismissed as CRB lacks jurisdiction over § 31-290a claims. However, appellant failed to file reasons for appeal, motion to correct or a brief. Therefore, appeal dismissible for failure to prosecute. See also, Jones, § 31-290a.

Levasseur v. General Dynamics Corporation/Electric Boat Division, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 34, 1244 CRD-2-91-6 (February 26, 1993).

Trier’s decision was based on stipulated facts agreed to by respondent-employer and claimant at informal hearing. However, the matter involved the Second Injury Fund. Thus, absent the Fund’s consent, a real party in interest, the contested issues must be addressed at a formal hearing so an evidentiary record can be established and the CRB will then have the opportunity for adequate appellate review. See also, Levasseur, § 31-349.

Bevans v. Milford, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 21, 1487 CRB-3-92-8 (February 18, 1993).

Appeal dismissed where trier vacates his finding. Hence, issues which arguably may be raised on appeal are now moot.

Rydecki v. West Hartford/Board of Education, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 22, 1613 CRB-1-93 (February 18, 1993).

See, Bevans, infra.

Cowles v. Colt’s Manufacturing Company, Inc., 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 19, 1071 CRD-1-90-7 (February 17, 1993).

See, Schick, infra.

Schick v. Windsor Airmotive Division, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 17, 1033 CRD-1-90-6 (February 16, 1993), motion to dismiss appeal for lack of final judgment denied, 31 Conn. App. 819 (1993), aff’d, 34 Conn. App. 673 (1994).

Remanded as trier resigned shortly after appeal was filed and never ruled on the Motion to Correct. See also, Schick, § 31-278.

Vasseur v. Konica Business Machines, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 228, 1467 CRB-1-92-7 (January 4, 1993).

CRB dismissed appeal from trial commissioner’s oral ruling granting respondent-employer’s Form 36 as there was no written or printed record of proceedings below.

Bogli v. Glastonbury, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 226, 1537 CRB-8-92-10 (December 28, 1992).

Appeal from Order granting § 31-308a benefits as the result of an informal hearing dismissed. There must be further proceedings below to establish a written or printed record before the CRB can properly consider an appeal.

Warchola v. U.S. Gypsum Specialists, 1444 CRB-1-92-6 (December 28, 1992).

Appeal dismissed as trier’s Finding was issued as a result of an informal hearing. CRB Order vacated (January 14, 1993).

Duclos v. Northeast Lightning Protection, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 225, 1451 CRB-1-92-7 (December 28, 1992).

Appeal from Finding issued as the result of an informal hearing dismissed. There must be further proceedings below to establish a written or printed record before the CRB can properly consider an appeal.

Demay v. State/Dept. of Correction, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 224, 1584 CRB-2-92-12 (December 18, 1992).

Appeal from trier’s oral ruling granting Form 36 dismissed. There must be further proceedings below to establish a written or printed record before the CRB can properly consider an appeal.

Molbury v. Midwest Drivers Corporation, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 202, 1278 CRD-7-91-8 (November 12, 1992).

Pro se claimant failed to file reasons of appeal, motion to correct and brief or why claimant was appealing trial commissioner’s decision. However, the CRB by reviewing record below and correspondence from claimant, inferred basis of appeal as a challenge to trial commissioner’s failure to find claimant totally disabled after a certain date. CRB held evidence in conflict and thus, conclusion was supported.

Chute v. Mobil Shipping and Transportation, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 183, 1321 CRD-7-91-10 (September 1, 1992), aff’d, 32 Conn. App. 16 (1993), cert. denied, 227 Conn. 919 (1993).

Corrected findings do not necessarily mandate a different outcome. See also, Chute, § 31-275(9), and § 31-294c.

Crochiere v. Enfield/Board of Education, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 165, 1069 CRD-1-90-7 (August 27, 1992), aff’d, 227 Conn. 333 (1993).

Claimant’s cross appeal dismissed for failure to file appeal within ten days as required by statute. In addition, CRB found trier’s refusal to act on Motion to Correct was not error as respondents-appellants original Motion failed to include portions of evidence which would support requested corrections, no extension was sought, and subsequent Motion to Correct was not filed within the time requirements set forth in Adm. Reg. § 31-301-4. See also, Crochiere, § 31-275(1), § 31-284(a), § 31-294c, § 31-298, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Campbell v. Manchester Memorial, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 151, 1182 CRD-5-91-2 (June 30, 1992).

Trier must re-examine correction sought as evidentiary record, although incomplete, seems to indicate support for correction of factual finding. Appellant is responsible for assuring adequacy of record on appeal. This includes assuring exhibits which may support a particular correction to a factual finding are before the CRB panel. Support for a correction to a factual finding can be found in a transcript reference which is before the CRB panel and a remand is being granted for other reasons. See also, Campbell, § 31-294c.

Gonzalez v. Meriden-Wallingford Hospital, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 127, 1178 CRD-8-91-2 (May 21, 1992).

Appeal dismissed where respondents failed to file a brief or memorandum directing the CRB to portions of evidentiary record in support of their argument. It is not the duty of the CRB to find the evidence pertaining to corrections sought.

Svarplaitis v. Kimberly Clark Corporation, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 124, 1264 CRD-7-91-7 (May 15, 1992).

Mailbox rule, i.e. if a document is mailed on a certain date, then it is filed on that date, does not apply. Appellant failed to file appeal within ten days, therefore appeal dismissed.

Ward v. Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc., 10 Conn, Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 111, 1161 CRD-7-91-1 (May 8, 1992).

Appeal filed in chairman’s office by the tenth day arguably substantially complied with § 31-301 time requirements. Also, CRB relied on Supreme Court decision Trinkley v. Ella Grasso Regional Center, 220 Conn. 739 (1992). As Trinkley suggests a showing of prejudice is needed by the party seeking dismissal for an untimely appeal filing and as no allegation of prejudice was present in this matter, appeal considered timely filed. See also, Ward, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Nevers v. Environmental Waste Removal, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 96, 1166 CRD-5-91-1 (April 23, 1992).

Fund’s appeal sustained and matter remanded. Where there is no record or transcript of proceedings below; CRB cannot perform any meaningful review.

Smith v. New Haven, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 93, 1154 CRD-3-90-12 (April 20, 1992).

CRB dismissed appeal for failure to prosecute where no reasons of appeal or brief was filed.

Romeo v. H & L Chevrolet, Inc., 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 72, 1149 CRD-7-90-12 (March 31, 1992).

Where claimant’s request that trial commissioner should have recused himself in the proceedings below and the request for recusal was not an issue below or mentioned in claimant’s reasons of appeal but mentioned for the first time in appellant’s brief before the CRB, such request will not be considered for the first time on appeal. Also, commissioner below was obligated to perform administrative functions, and his finding that no record of a timely filed notice of claim was not an action which resulted in the denial of claimant’s due process right to an impartial arbiter. See also, Romeo, § 31-294c and § 31-278.

McCarthy v. 10 Star Corporation, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 64, 1134 CRD-2-90-11 (March 16, 1992).

Factual findings must stand where no motion to correct is filed. See also, McCarthy, § 31-308(b).

Lynch v. Red Star Express, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 75, 1133 CRD-3-90-11 (March 9, 1992).

Factual findings of trial commissioner must stand where no motion to correct is filed. See also, Lynch, § 31-300.

Deleon v. Dunkin Donuts, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 39, 1113 CRD-3-90-9 (January 23, 1992).

CRB need not consider corrections sought in a Motion to Correct which would not alter the legal outcome. See also, Deleon, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Peters v. State/Southern Connecticut State University, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 32, 1103 CRD-3-90-8 (January 13, 1992).

Where issue on appeal is not included in Reasons of Appeal and is only raised in brief submitted before CRB, CRB need not consider issue. Remanded on § 31-308 issue. See also, Peters, § 31-294c, and § 31-308(c).

Barlow v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 274, 1076 CRD-5-90-7 (December 13, 1991).

Ten-day statutory deadline for filing an appeal inapplicable where trier lacked authority to make any ruling or finding as appellant, a party of interest, was not notified of evidentiary hearing below. Jurisdictional defense can be raised at any time. See also, Barlow, § 31-284b.

Tessier v. Kogut Florist and Nurseryman, Inc., 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 288, 1088 CRD-8-90-7 (December 13, 1991).

Appeal filed within ten (10) day statutory period in the chairman’s office timely filed as the chairman has statewide jurisdiction. See also, Tessier, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-290c, and § 31-307.

Richard v. Catholic Mutual Relief Society of America, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 272, 1067 CRD-1-90-7 (December 6, 1991).

Where no Motion to Correct is filed Factual findings must stand. See also, Richard, § 31-284(a).

Fecto v. Kelly’s Contracting, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 256, 1027 CRD-5-90-5 (November 27, 1991).

Where no Motion to Correct is filed, trier’s factual finding must stand. See also, Fecto, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Fournier v. Economy Spring, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 246, 1141 CRD-6-90-11 (October 31, 1991).

Appeal dismissed for failure to comply with statutory time requirements.

Colucci v. Mattatuck Manufacturing Co., 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 234, 1000 CRD-5-90-4 (October 30, 1991).

As no Motion to Correct was filed, the facts found must stand. Additionally, where trier made no final judgment concerning claimant’s right wrist injury; appeal premature. See also, Colucci, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Parks v. PDQ’s Restaurant, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 230, 991 CRD-2-90-3 (October 30, 1991).

Remanded in order to permit respondents opportunity for a full evidentiary hearing as date of formal hearing below conflicted with respondent’s schedule which the district office was aware of in advance.

Gatewood v. Hartford, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 220, 1006 CRD-1-90-4 (October 21, 1991).

Facts as found by trial commissioner must stand where no Motion to Correct is filed. See, Mack v. Blake Drug, 152 Conn. 523 (1965). See also, Gatewood, § 7-433c.

Bonner v. Correia & Son Construction, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 193, 1127 CRD-3-90-11 (August 29, 1991).

Appeal dismissed for failure to comply with statutorily mandated time requirements for filing an appeal.

Shaskus v. Structural Accessories, Inc., 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 197, 1061 CRD-5-90-6 (August 29, 1991).

Appeal dismissed for failure to comply with statutorily mandated time requirements for filing an appeal.

Imbrogno v. Stamford Hospital, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 174, 967 CRD-7-90-1 (August 2, 1991), aff’d, rev’d & remanded in part, 28 Conn. App. 113 (1992), cert. denied, 223 Conn. 920 (1992).

Appeal from a denial of a Motion to Correct is a procedural superfluity when there exists a proper and timely appeal record. See also, Imbrogno, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-300.

Crossway v. Newington, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 167, 978 CRD-6-90-2 (June 28, 1991).

Where appellant fails to file a Motion to Correct the findings must stand. See also, Crossway, § 7-433c.

Kempesta v. Hendels Gas & Oil Co., 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 152, 998 CRD-2-90-4 (June 5, 1991).

Matter remanded for further proceedings as trier’s award of compensation benefits and medical expenses resulted from an informal hearing and CRD cannot properly review without a record of the proceeding below.

Palmer v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 150, 1079 CRD-8-90-7 (June 5, 1991).

Claimant’s appeal sought review of an informal disfigurement evaluation. As there was no record below for the CRD to review, matter remanded for further proceedings.

Merchant v. J.S. Nasin Company, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 122, 952 CRD-2-89-11 (May 1, 1991).

Cross appeal dismissed for failure to comply with time requirements of § 31-301(a). See also, Merchant, § 31-298.

Madden v. Moore Special Tool, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 107, 834 CRD-4-89-3 (April 8, 1991).

CRD waived compliance with procedural technicalities in order to protect pro se claimant’s rights as factual finding was incorrect.

Matey v. Estate of Sarah Dember, 1189 CRD-5-91-3 (April 5, 1991).

Issues addressed on appeal rendered moot where trial commissioner grants motion to set aside and reopen proceedings below. Prior decision at Matey, 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 104, 516 CRD-5-86 (June 14, 1988), appeal dismissed, 210 Conn. 626 (1989)(per curiam), § 31-278, § 31-310. Subsequent decision at Matey, 3153 CRB-5-95-8 (January 10, 1997), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 256 Conn. 456 (2001), supra, § 31-315, § 31-355(a), Matey, 3848 CRB-7-98-6 (July 7, 1999), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 256 Conn. 456 (2001), § 31-355(b), Matey, 4488 CRB-7-02-2, 4532 CRB-5-02-5 (May 14, 2003), appeal dismissed for failure to comply with Supreme Court’s directive, 85 Conn. App. 198 (2004).

Corona v. Uniroyal Chemical, Inc., 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 105, 987 CRD-5-90-3 (March 13, 1991).

Appeal dismissed where respondent had actual notice of the Finding and Award within the ten-day appeal period and failed to file a timely appeal.

Bennett v. East Hartford, 1155 CRD-1-90-11 (March 11, 1991).

Matter remanded where there is no record or transcript of evidence below for CRD to review.

Kica v. Mattatuck Manufacturing Co., 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 103, 930 CRD-5-89-10 (March 7, 1991).

Where original trial commissioner died before a decision was reached and parties agreed to submit matter based on record and evidence presented before the original trial commissioner to the subsequent commissioner for a decision, claimant is not entitled to a de novo hearing. See, Foley v. New Britain, 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 147, 47 CRD-6-81 (August 3, 1982).

Lauriano v. Reliance Automotive, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 96, 934 CRD-8-89-11 (March 4, 1991).

Appeal dismissed where appellant failed to prosecute with due diligence.

Delaney v. Camelot Nursing Home, 1049 CRD-2-90-6 (February 7, 1991).

DRG. See, Burdick v. Frito Lay, Inc., 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 64, 1048 CRD-2-90-6 (February 7, 1991).

Burdick v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 64, 1048 CRD-2-90-6 (February 7, 1991).

Matter remanded. Without a proper transcript of the proceedings below, CRD cannot properly review record on appeal. See, Case v. McClinch Crane, 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 92, 727 CRD-7-88-4 (October 4, 1989).

Laime v. American Standard, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 62, 914 CRD-2-89-9 (February 6, 1991).

Matter remanded where there is no record of proceedings below for CRD to review. See also, Laime, § 31-298.

Trinkley v. State/Ella Grasso Regional Center, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 58, 924 CRD-5-89-10 (February 6, 1991), rev’d, 220 Conn. 739 (1992).

Appeal petition received by facsimile transmission substantially complied with § 31-301. On appeal, Supreme Court held that as the record was devoid of any finding as to when the appellant received notice of the trial commissioner’s decision, there is a strong presumption of regularity which attaches to the timeliness of appeals to the CRD. Further, disputes as to the timeliness of an appeal do not deprive the CRD of jurisdiction over the appeal where appellee has failed to assert any showing of prejudice. See also, Trinkley, § 5-142(a).

Mancini v. A. Laugeni & Son, Inc., 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 45, 739 CRD-5-88-6 (February 4, 1991).

CRD limited to considering only issues raised at the time of trial or assigned as issues on appeal. See also, Mancini, § 31-306.

Russo v. Stamm Construction Co., Inc., 1167 CRD-6-91-1 (January 29, 1991).

Where finding and award is vacated, appeal from that award is therefore moot.

Tarver v. Meriden Yellow Cab Co., 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 165, 877 CRD-8-89-6 (September 27, 1990).

Appeal dismissed for failure to file within 10 day statutory period.

Waddington v. Electric Boat/Division of General Dynamics, 8 Conn Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 149, 720 CRD-2-88-4 (September 6, 1990).

Remanded. Where transcripts of the proceedings below are not obtainable, record is incomplete.

Stevens v. Hartford, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 134, 831 CRD-1-89-2 (August 6, 1990).

Appeal petition not late where original mailing resulted in postal service’s non-delivery of Finding and Award. Further, where office of commissioner closed for legal holiday on date petition for review was due, receipt next business day acceptable. See also, Stevens, § 31-300.

Weaver v. Jessman Motors, Inc., 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 138, 793 CRD-5-88-12 (August 6, 1990).

Appeal dismissed where appellant failed to provide transcript and the issue to be determined necessitated review of the evidence below.

Morant v. Stanadyne, Inc., 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 116, 828 CRD-1-89-2 (June 19, 1990).

Appeal filed after 10th day untimely. However, matter may be re-opened below if requirements of § 31-315 are satisfied.

Perrotti v. Portland Chemical, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 105, 836 CRD-8-89-3 (June 6, 1990).

See, Perrotti, § 31-299b.

Halliday v. Daw’s Critical Care Registry, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 74, 797 CRD-7-88-12 (April 27, 1990).

CRD cannot reassess factual finding of trial commissioner. Matter must be remanded to trial commissioner for his determination as to the appropriate legal conclusion to be reached after further proceedings. See also, Halliday, § 31-291, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Famiglietti v. Dossert Corp., 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 65, 804 CRD-5-88-12 (April 17, 1990).

Appeal dismissed where appellant failed to file appeal petition within 10 days as required by statute.

Trantolo v. Trantolo & Trantolo, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 69, 823 CRD-6-89-2 (April 17, 1990).

Whether an issue raised on appeal may be considered where the issue was not raised at the trial level is controlled by Practice Book § 4185. See also, Trantolo, § 31-294c, § 31-300.

Cormier v. Macke Company, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 63, 799 CRD-2-88-12 (March 23, 1990).

Where finding regarding date of injury is legally inconsistent with other facts found matter must be remanded. See also, Cormier, § 31-301. Factual findings.

Sibilio v. Modern Printing & Lithography, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 35, 770 CRD-7-88-9 (February 21, 1990).

Remanded. Confusion over dates of occurrences.

Spataro v. Mattioli Construction, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 41, 784 CRD-4-88-10 (February 21, 1990).

Where appellant failed to provide specific assignments of error in commissioner’s evidentiary rulings, issue will not be reviewed. See also, Spataro, § 31-294d, § 31-301-9. Additional evidence.

Rushton v. VIP Limousine, 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 117, 756 CRD-7-88-8 (December 6, 1989).

Motions to Correct do not toll the statutory time limitation for filing appeals when filed beyond appeal period.

Case v. McClinch Crane, 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 92, 727 CRD-7-88-4 (October 4, 1989).

Incomplete transcripts of the record below require remand for proper review to be possible. See also, Case, § 31-298.

Zeoli v. Healy-Ford Subaru, 873 CRD-5-89-6 (1989).

Appeal dismissed for mootness.

Johnston v. ARA Services, Inc., 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 19, 765 CRD-7-88-8 (June 29, 1989).

Appeal dismissed for failure to comply with § 31-301 and § 31-301-2.

Jagush v. Litton-Winchester Electronics, 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 1, 609 CRD-7-87 (June 9, 1989).

No reasons of appeal filed, therefore appeal is subject to dismissal.

Campbell v. Vaccaro’s Restaurant, 863 CRD-8-89-5 (1989).

Appeal dismissed.

Tutsky v. Y.M.C.A. of Greenwich, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 167, 543 CRD-7-87 (June 5, 1989), no error, 21 Conn. App. 806 (1990)(per curiam).

Late second appeal petition dismissed.

Mauro v. General Dynamics Corporation/Electric Boat Division, 713 CRD-2-88-3 (1989).

Case ordered remanded for trial proceedings so a transcript record can be prepared.

Hankey v. Hamden Steel and Aluminum Corp., 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 153, 644 CRD-5-87 (April 28, 1989).

Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss on the basis of the untimely filing of the appellant’s Reasons of Appeal not allowed where Motion to Dismiss not filed within 10 days of document’s due date. Practice Book § 4056. See, Sager v. GAB Business Services, Inc., 11 Conn. App. 693 (1987).

Kinney v. State, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 143, 786 CRD-3-88-11 (April 6, 1989).

Motion To Dismiss for late filed reasons of appeal denied until jurisdictional issues are resolved by Supreme Court in Reservation by CRD under § 31-324.

Diana v. C.H. Nickerson & Company, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 123, 597 CRD-5-87 (March 10, 1989).

Where factual findings are not in compliance with Administrative Regulation § 31-301-3 and legal conclusion not supported by the factual findings, matter remanded for further proceedings. Also, appeal held timely under § 31-301 as petition was filed the next business day after a legal holiday.

Franzese v. Lombard Brothers, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 109, 585 CRD-5-87 (February 23, 1989).

Articulation from CRD proper where exact basis for decision unclear.

Richardson v. H.B. Sanson, Inc., 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 107, 590 CRD-1-87 (February 23, 1989).

Whether appeal should be dismissed due to late filing of brief is matter of discretion. Further, issues not briefed are deemed abandoned.

Hall v. McLean Home, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 80, 577 CRD-5-87 (January 9, 1989).

Remanded for articulation of precise theory of liability; several specific incidents or the result of repetitive trauma.

Poventud v. Eagle Four, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 72, 775 CRD-5-88-10 (December 30, 1988).

Use of motion in limine not permitted in this forum.

Murdock v. Squires, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. 64, 550 CRD-7-87 (December 1, 1988).

Appeal dismissed where appeal petition filed after time permitted by § 31-301(a).

Plourde v. Scovill Manufacturing Co., 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 67, 521 CRD-5-86 (December 1, 1988).

CRD has power under Practice Book § 4055 to dismiss appeal where claimant failed to file Motion to Correct or Reasons of Appeal.

Calvanese v. Springfield Sugar, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 52, 549 CRD-1-87 (October 21, 1988).

Matter remanded where testimony of expert witnesses as to causation was undisputed but trial commissioner was unpersuaded by them. Fairness requires findings show why the trial commissioner was not persuaded by the experts’ testimony.

Kwasnik v. Drico Corp., 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 50, 549 CRD-1-87 (October 21, 1988).

Issue not briefed deemed abandoned.

Morehouse v. Coffman’s Lawn Sprinkler Service, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 49, 591 CRD-7-87 (October 19, 1988).

Appeal dismissed where appellant failed to file briefs or appear at oral argument and appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to § 4055 Practice Book.

Daniele v. Angelo Monarca, Inc., 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 25, 519 CRD-3-86 (1988).

See, Daniele, § 31-298.

Erdos v. Stratford, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 24, 532 CRD-4-86 (September 19, 1988).

Matter remanded for further proceedings where parties so stipulated.

King v. Jukonski Truck Sales & Service, Inc., 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 1, 616 CRD-6-87 (August 12, 1988).

Motion to dismiss for failure to file timely reasons of appeal not granted where movant failed to comply with Practice Book § 4056 as required by Sager v. GAB Business Services, Inc., 11 Conn. App. 693 (1987). Also CRD considered merits of claim in order to comply as nearly as possible with time requirements under § 31-301.

Sorbello v. Gagnon, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 3, 567 CRD-6-87 (August 12, 1988).

Matter remanded where transcript unavailable.

Black v. London & Egazarian Associates, Inc., 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 126, 483 CRD-7-86 (June 29, 1988).

CRD is vested with authority to review rulings on Motion to Preclude. See also, Black, § 31-294c and § 31-301. Factual findings.

Imbrogno v. Stamford Hospital, 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 99, 610 CRD-8-87 (June 9, 1988).

Claimant’s filing of Motion to Correct 11 days after rendering of finding and award was not timely and did not arrest judgment in the absence of a timely filed Petition for Review. Further a Petition for Review filed within 10 days after a commissioner’s denial of Motion for Reargument does not entitle appellate review as to any issue other than denial of motion. See later Imbrogno, § 31-300 and § 31-301. Factual findings.

Robillard v. Puckett, 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 72, 458 CRD-2-86 (April 28, 1988).

Matter dismissed for failure to prosecute the appeal with due diligence. Practice Book § 4055.

Lepino v. Electrolux Corp., 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 64, 561 CRD-7-87 (April 26, 1988).

Respondents’ appeal dismissed where Motion to Extend Time to File Reasons was granted and gave an extension of time until two weeks after trial commissioner’s ruling, and Reasons of Appeal were not submitted until after the extended time period.

Falborn v. Perkin Elmer Corp., 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 60, 619 CRD-7-87 (April 14, 1988).

Respondents’ appeal dismissed under § 31-301-2 and Practice Book § 4056 as reasons of appeal were not submitted within time period permitted.

Barnes v. Levine Distributors, 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 49, 468 CRD-2-86 (April 7, 1988).

Where appellant’s appeal alleged the trial commissioner’s finding was unsupported by any evidence a Motion to Produce Transcript would be granted and rehearings permitted if necessary.

Kismann v. Perry, 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 131, 563 CRD-2-87 (June 29, 1987).

CRD dismissed appeal due to appellant’s failure to prosecute where appellant failed to file Reasons of Appeal, Motion to Correct or Brief.

Baran v. Colen Displays, 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 107, 371 CRD-7-84 (June 20, 1987).

Respondents’ failure to file reasons of appeal within § 31-301-2 resulted in dismissal of respondents’ appeal.

Wilson v. Springfield Sugar, 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 66, 272 CRD-1-83 (May 11, 1987).

Failure to file reasons of appeal within time required by § 31-301-2 will result in dismissal.

Coco v. Dunham-Bush, Inc., 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 48, 415 CRD-1-85 (April 9, 1987).

Failure to appear at oral argument or to file a brief will result in dismissal.

Giguere v. Delta Rubber Co., 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 49, 428 CRD-2-85 (April 9, 1987).

Where claimant made a motion to reopen and such motion was granted and the finding and dismissal was vacated, there was no final judgment on which the CRD could act.

Irving v. Hoyland, 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 25, 249 CRD-7-83 (March 4, 1987).

Motion to extend time for filing Motion to Correct is within time required for filing of Motion to Correct.

Fisher v. State, 4 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 3, 413 CRD-1-85 (February 26, 1987).

Failure to file reasons of appeal within time period directed in § 31-301-2 will result in dismissal.

Ginoni v. Sikorsky Aircraft, 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 144, 301 CRD-4-84 (January 26, 1987).

Failure to file Reasons of Appeal within time period prescribed by § 31-301-2 will result in dismissal. See, Sager v. GAB Business Services, Inc., 11 Conn. App. 693 (1987).

Paskowski v. Connecticut Spring & Stamping Corp., 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 134, 205 CRD-6-83 (January 21, 1987).

See, Kiernan, supra.

Kiernan v. Roadway Express, Inc., 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 129 (December 23, 1986), no error, 15 Conn. App. 625 (1988), cert. denied, 210 Conn. 801 (1988).

Failure to file Reasons of Appeal within time permitted by an extension of time will result in dismissal.

Lund v. American Fabrics, 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 123, 447 CRD-4-86 (December 23, 1986).

Failure to file Reasons of Appeal within prescribed period under § 31-301-2 will result in dismissal.

McIninch v. New London, 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 115, 245 CRD-2-83 (December 22, 1986).

Appeals that do not comply with § 31-301-1 will result in dismissal.

Cocoran v. Seal, Inc., 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 114, 250 CRD-5-83 (December 8, 1986).

Failure to file Reasons of Appeal within ten days of Petition for Review as prescribed in § 31-301-2 will result in dismissal.

Cutler v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 106, 285 CRD-7-83 (December 2, 1986).

Appeal dismissed where no Reasons for Appeal filed by extended time period.

Tomkinson v. Stockwell, 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 101, 218 CRD-4-83 (November 28, 1986).

Failure to file Reasons of Appeal or Motion to Extend Time for such filing within period prescribed by § 31-301-2 is grounds for dismissal.

Emmens v. Southbury Food Center, 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 73, 455 CRD-5-86 (October 7, 1986).

Failure to file reasons of appeal within time period permitted by extension will result in dismissal.

Belle v. St. Johnsbury Trucking Co., 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 72, 495 CRD-4-86 (October 6, 1986).

Failure to file appeal within 10 days of Finding and Award results in dismissal.

Wright v. Infeld, 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 62, 434 CRD-4-85 (July 10, 1986).

See, Belle, supra.

Sager v. GAB Business Services, Inc., 430 CRD-3-85 (April 9, 1986), error; further proceedings, 11 Conn. App. 693 (1987).

CRD dismissed appeal for failure to comply with Administrative Regulation § 31-301-2. Appellate Court found error and held Practice Book § 4056 was controlling. A Motion to Dismiss for failure to file papers within the time allowed must be filed within ten days after the time when the papers were required to be filed, otherwise the Motion to Dismiss is late and the defect is waived.

Lane v. State/Norwich Hospital, 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 28, 373 CRD-2-85 (January 29, 1986).

See, Belle, supra.

Champagne v. F. & S. Oil Co., 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 18, 423 CRD-5-85 (October 28, 1985).

See, Belle, supra.

Domizio v. Domizio Enterprises, Inc., 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 19, 423 CRD-5-85 (October 28, 1985).

Failure to file Reasons of Appeal within time period directed under Administrative Regulation § 31-301-2 will result in dismissal.

Duncan v. Waterbury, 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 1, 168 CRD-5-82 (August 14, 1985).

Where appellant sought correction of factual finding objection should be made in accordance with Administrative Regulation § 31-301-4. Correction of Finding.

Short v. Family Services, 2 Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 125, 180 CRD-4-82 (March 1, 1985).

Dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Reising v. General Dynamics Corporation/Electric Boat Division, 2 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 123, 361 CRD-2-84 (February 25, 1985).

Failure to file reasons of appeal within 10 days results in dismissal. See, Domizio, supra.

Andrews v. Sal’s Express Co., 2 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 110, 228 CRD-4-83 (December 3, 1984).

Although respondent’s Motion to Correct was filed late, Commissioner’s granting of said motion impliedly extended time for filing.

Barton v. Weller Farms, Inc., 2 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 101, 320 CRD-1-84 (August 17, 1984).

See, Belle, supra.

Johnson v. Courtland Gardens Convalescent Home, 2 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 82, 154 CRD-7-82 (July 27, 1984).

See, Domizio, supra.

Damiano v. State, 2 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 66, 196 CRD-2-83, 197 CRD-2-83, 198 CRD-2-83, 199 CRD-2-83 (June 19, 1984).

See, Belle, supra.

Fortin v. State, 2 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 33, 138 CRD-6-82 (September 19, 1983).

Cross-appeal dismissed due to untimely filing.

Sullivan v. Northwind Energy Insulators, Inc., 2 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 12, 146 CRD-4-82 (May 23, 1983), no error, 2 Conn. App. 689 (1984), cert. denied, 195 Conn. 801 (1985).

Commissioner’s failure to rule on Motion to Disqualify held harmless error as issuance of Finding and Award made matter moot.

Foley v. New Britain, 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 147, 47 CRD-6-81 (August 3, 1982).

See citation listed under § 7-433.

Gavin v. New Britain, 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 151, 46 CRD-6-81 (August 3, 1982).

See, Foley, supra.

Karas v. Hamilton Standard Division/U.T.C., 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 26, 45 CRD-6-81 (February 20, 1981).

(February 20, 1981). See, Belle, supra .

Golub v. State, 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 3, 4 CRD-2-79 (April 2, 1980).

See, Belle, supra.

Ilewicz v. State, 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 5, 10 CRD-2-80 (April 2, 1980).

See, Belle, supra.

PREVIOUS Section | NEXT Section | MENU for CRB Annotations

State of Connecticut

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: August 14, 2015

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/annotations/an31-301(ap).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