CRB Case Annotations re: Section 31-301 Appeal procedure.

Claimant-appellant failed to file Motion to Correct. Where basis of appeal was the omission of allegedly undisputed facts that trier might have drawn from claimant’s testimony and doctor’s report, CRB affirmed the trier’s determination that said evidence was not credible. Also cited at Bombardier, § 31-301. Factual findings.

CRB granted motion to dismiss appeal where pro se claimant’s letter to trial commissioner, which was construed as a 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.

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

Appeal remanded where formal hearing is conducted off the record. No exhibits or transcript exist to properly consider appeal pursuant to Sec. 31-301.

Where originals of documents could not be located parties submitted copies of documents and agreed to same in writing.

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.

CRB dismissed petition for review where no formal hearing had yet been held to allow the creation of an 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.

Appeal from the trial commissioner’s denial of respondents’ motion to dismiss remanded where no record exists for board to properly consider pursuant to Sec. 31-301.

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 file an appeal from the denial of the Motion to Correct. In his appeal, the claimant was addressing the legal issues of the trial commissioner’s decision. As claimant failed to appear at oral argument and failed to file Reasons of appeal, board also dismissed his 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 pay a § 31-290a claim where the employer fails to pay. Also cited at Williams, § 31-293, § 31-355(b).

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. Also cited at § 31-290a. Prior case at Kenyon, 4497 CRB-1-02-3, § 31-290a.

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.

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, Drew, § 31-301-9, § 31-315.

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, Sellers, § 31-296 Voluntary agreements (discontinuance of payments).

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.

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. Board noted that although the claimant was represented by counsel at the trial level, correspondence in the record indicated that her attorney advised her that he 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. Additionally, board explained even if it were to consider merits of appeal, it would necessarily affirm trier’s determination that claimant’s alleged spinal cord and brain injuries were not caused by a compensable fall-down injury, where decision was based upon credibility of the evidence. See, Bellman, § 31-301 Factual findings.

CRB affirmed trier’s decision to deny respondent an extension of time to file Motion to Correct. Respondent’s counsel missed formal hearing on proper amount of attorney’s fees awarded as sanctions for unreasonable contest, and made no showing of any effort to obtain the short transcript of that hearing or the affidavits claimant’s counsel offered to support his proposed fee award until after the trier released his decision. No abuse of discretion. CRB also declined to address issues that had been discussed in earlier CRB opinions. See prior decisions in 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.

Board dismissed the respondent appellant’s appeal, as the appeal became moot when a Full and Final Stipulation was approved by a Commissioner. Board noted that the respondent appellant had not withdrawn its appeal as requested.

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 the evidence. See, Marcoux, § 31-301. Factual findings.

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, DeFelippi, § 31-294d.

Appeals filed in effort to transfer liability to the Second Injury Fund rendered moot where prior appeal addressed merits of the case and the board affirmed the commissioner’s finding that claimant failed to sustain his burden of proof that his mental stress and physical illness were caused by workplace harassment. See, Noble v. Allstate Ins. Co., 4157 CRB-5-99-12 (July 28, 2000).

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

The appellant medical care provider’s appeal was late, as it was not filed within ten days of the Finding and Dismissal as required by § 31-301(a). However, the provider contended that he did not receive the decision within the ten day appeal period and this was corroborated by the record which indicated that a copy of the decision was not sent to the provider until he telephoned the district office, at which time the decision was mailed to him via certified mail. Accordingly, his appeal was deemed timely, as the provider, through no fault of its own, failed to receive notice of the commissioner’s decision within ten days of the date it was sent, and subsequently filed his appeal within ten days after the decision was sent to him. See Lemelin, § 31-294d.

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.

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 the appellant’s obligation to respond by the close of the tenth day. See, Hatt, § 31-299b, § 31-349.

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

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 the merits of the § 31-290a claim, and for failure to prosecute pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1 insofar as it might have sought to challenge the attorney’s fee award. Also cited at Somsky, § 31-290a.

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.

The board concluded that it had jurisdiction over the claimant’s appeal from the trial commissioner’s ruling denying the claimant’s motion to preclude, which ruling was made during a formal hearing. The respondents argued that it was premature for this board to consider the claimant’s appeal, as the trial commissioner had not yet issued any findings of fact. The board determined that it had jurisdiction under § 31-301(a) which gives this board jurisdiction to hear an appeal from “a decision of the commissioner upon a motion” as we have held that the statute contemplates some jurisdiction in this board over “interlocutory rulings in the districts.” See Mason, § 31-284(a), § 31-294c, § 31-298.

Motion of claimant’s attorney to withdraw as counsel granted where it appeared confidence and trust between attorney and client had eroded.

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.

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, Taylor, § 31-355; also cited at Taylor, § 31-294f.

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

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

Trial counsel filed late petition for review, noting on petition that the mail had been delayed due to a 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” in order to distribute the incapacitated 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 the ground that the 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 trial commissioner’s decision within ten days, thereby extending appeal period pursuant to Kudlacz v. Lindberg Heat Treating Co., 250 Conn. 581 (1999).

The board dismissed the claimant’s appeal from a Finding and Dismissal in which the trial commissioner dismissed the claimant’s claim regarding an alleged violation of § 31-290a. The appeal was dismissed, as this board lacks jurisdiction over appeals relating to § 31-290a.

The board dismissed the respondent’s appeal from a Finding and Award in which the trial commissioner found that the respondent had violated § 31-290a, and thus awarded the claimant damages. The appeal was dismissed, as this board lacks jurisdiction over appeals relating to § 31-290a.

Subsequent to the filing of his appeal, the claimant’s claim was settled pursuant to a Full and Final Stipulation which was approved by a commissioner. As the claimant’s appeal became moot, and the claimant has not withdrawn his appeal as requested, the board therefore dismissed the appeal.

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 discussion to clarify meaning of trier’s ambiguous finding. See, Ciocci, § 31-301. Factual findings, § 31-310, § 31-315.

CRB construed “Motion to Correct Opinion” of CRB as a motion for articulation of its decision in Melendez, 4178 CRB-2-00-1 (May 1, 2001). No “corrections” ordered. See, Melendez, § 31-278, § 31-298, § 31-300, § 31-303. Findings.

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

Board dismissed the claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1 where the pro se claimant failed to file a motion to correct, reasons of appeal, or a brief. Additionally, board noted that even if it were to consider the merits of the claimant’s appeal, it would necessarily affirm the trial commissioner’s decision as said decision was based on a credibility determination.

Board dismissed the claimant’s appeal insofar as it related to the § 31-290a claim. However, as the claimant in her appeal has also alleged that the trial commissioner erred in denying her request for interest and attorney’s fees, which was a separate issue from the § 31-290a claim, the board scheduled that portion of her appeal to be heard by this board.

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.

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.

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 Prac. 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.

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.

CRB dismissed claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute pursuant Prac. 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); cited at Christman, § 31-296.

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.

Dismissal order for failure to diligently prosecute appeal under Prac. Book § 85-1 (formerly Prac. 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).

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.

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. span class="bold">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.

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 Prac. 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).

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 in 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.

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

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 in Schreck, 3322 CRB-7-96-4 (September 23, 1997), rev’d, 51 Conn. App. 92 (1998), rev’d, 250 Conn. 592 (1999), infra.

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

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).

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.

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.

Remanded. Appeal not ripe for appellate review where petition is filed from a § 31-308a order issued as the result of an informal hearing.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 in Vetre, 3443 CRB-6-96-10 (November 28, 2000), § 31-297, § 31-298, § 31-300, § 31-307.

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.

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 ruling in Prioli, 3955 CRB-6-98-12 (October 16, 2000), § 31-301c.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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; cited at § 31-294d.

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.

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.

See, Melendez, § 31-288.

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.

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.

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

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 in 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 cited at Bailey, § 31-284b, § 31-294d, § 31-301. Factual findings; prior decision in Bailey, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 433, 3152 CRB-5-95-8 (September 3, 1996), infra, § 31-301. Factual findings.

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.

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.

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 Prac. Book § 85-1. See also, Whelan, § 31-301. Factual findings.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Prac. Book 85-1.

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 Prac. Book § 85-1 for failure to prosecute.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Appeal moot as trier vacated Finding.

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).

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.

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.

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

Frivolous appeal, last-minute withdrawal. Sanctions awarded to claimant. See also, Yuille, § 31-301c, § 31-327.

Late appeal by claimant had to be dismissed as untimely. See also, Czujak, § 7-433c, § 31-300, § 31-307a, § 31-315.

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).

CRB dismissed late petition for review.

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

CRB dismissed claimant’s appeal pursuant to Prac. 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.

Claimant moved for sanctions against respondents for filing a bad faith appeal, citing Prac. 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.

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.

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.

CRB dismissed respondents’ appeal pursuant to Prac. 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.

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, and prior opinion on § 31-301(f) issue dated February 28, 1997.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Claimant failed to file a Motion to Correct, so he was limited to the trier’s findings on appeal. See also, Fusciello, § 31-307.

CRB dismissed the claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Prac. 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.

CRB dismissed the pro se claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Prac. 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.

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 For Appeal is deemed abandoned.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 Prac. Book for failure to prosecute with proper diligence.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

CRB remanded case to trial commissioner where all of the parties agreed that this matter should be remanded for a clarification of his decision.

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 Prac. 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.

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

The claimant’s petition for review was not filed within the time limit set by § 31-301(a) and was thus dismissed as untimely.

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.

The CRB dismissed the Second Injury Fund’s appeal on the basis of Prac. 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 Prac. 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.

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.

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 Prac. Book § 4184A.

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.

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. Prior decision in Schiano, 1852 CRB-4-93-9 (Dec. 7, 1994), § 31-293, § 31-301. Appeal procedure. Subsequent decision in Schiano, 4104 CRB-4-99-8 (Feb. 21, 2001), rev’d, 260 Conn. 21 (2002), § 31-278, § 31-303, and cited at § 31-300.

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 caselaw regarding recusal and disqualification. See also, Evans, § 31-275(16), § 31-301. Factual findings, notes on Rules of Professional Conduct.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 Prac. Book § 4184B(4), (5), (8); § 4165.4.

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.

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.

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 Prac. Book § 4184A.

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.

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 Prac. Book § 4184A.

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 Prac. 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 Prac. 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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Prac. Book § 4184A.

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.

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.

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.

CRB dismissed the claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Prac. 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.

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.

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.

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 Prac. Book § 4055.

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 § 31-284(a).

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 Hall, § 31-349.

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 (Jan. 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, and cited at Bailey, § 31-284b, § 31-294d, § 31-301. Factual findings; Bailey, 3694 CRB-1-97-9 (January 12, 1999), rev’d, 65 Conn. App. 592 (2001), supra and § 31-298.

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.

“Motion to Stay Appeal Time Limitation” construed as appeal notice. No documents filed to support appeal. Prac. 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 Prac. Book § 4055.

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 Prac. Book § 4055. span class="bold">NOTE: Dismissal vacated and appeal reopened (July 12, 1996). Appeal was subsequently withdrawn.

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).

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.

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 Prac. 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.

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.

As the claimant’s appeal was not filed within the time limits required by § 31-301(a), CRB dismissed it as untimely.

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.

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.

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.

No Motion to Correct, so factual findings must remain intact. See also, Eligio, § 31-308(a).

As the Fund has failed to file a timely brief, CRB dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Prac. Book § 4055.

Practice Book § 4055 dismissal; claimant failed to file Brief, Motion to Correct, Reasons of Appeal.

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, Trankovich, § 31-310.

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 Prac. 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.)

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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 Prac. 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.

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.

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 Prac. Book § 4055 where neither reasons for appeal nor brief filed by appellant.

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 Prac. Book § 4055.

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.

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.

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.

Nothing filed in support of appeal; case dismissed under P. B. § 4055.

No documents filed in support of appeal, including brief. Dismissed pursuant to Prac. Book § 4055.

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.

Late appeal; failure to prosecute pursuant to P. B. § 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).

Late petition for review; no documents to support appeal. P. B. § 4055.

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; Prac. Book § 4055.

See also, Allingham, § 31-298 (question of timeliness of appeal).

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.

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).

Appeal dismissed pursuant to Prac. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Claims raised in appellee’s brief not considered; no petition for review or Reasons of Appeal were filed by appellee.

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.

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 Prac. Book § 4055. See also, Cruz, § 31-300.

Failure to file Motion to Correct limits CRB to findings of commissioner. See also, Bell, § 31-275(1).

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.

Appeal dismissed for failure to comply with § 31-301(a) and for failure to prosecute with due diligence pursuant to Prac. Book § 4055. See also, Brockett, § 31-301-9. Additional evidence.

Failure to file Motion to Correct limits CRB to commissioner’s findings. See also, Wright, § 31-308(a).

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 Prac. Book § 4055. See also, McBreairty, § 31-307b.

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.

Arguments in Reasons of Appeal deemed abandoned when neither briefed nor raised at oral argument. See also, Maio, § 31-301. Factual findings.

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.

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).

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.

Appeal dismissed pursuant to Prac. Book § 4005 where appellant failed to file motion to correct, reasons of appeal, or brief.

Appeal dismissed pursuant to Prac. Book § 4005 where employer/appellant failed to timely file a brief.

Appeal dismissed where claimant failed to file a brief or appear at oral argument before the CRB.

Appellant has burden to provide CRB with adequate record for review. See Prac. Book § 4061. See also, Sargent, § 31-300 and § 31-301. Factual findings.

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.

Appeal dismissed pursuant to Prac. Book § 4005 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.

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.

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.

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).

Appeal from informal disfigurement evaluation dismissed where CRB has no written or printed record of proceedings below to review.

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 Prac. Book § 4055, but did grant motion to strike brief of Fund and prohibited counsel from raising new issues at oral argument pursuant to Prac. Book § 4018. See also, Schiano, § 31-293. Subsequent decisions in Schiano, 3436 CRB-4-96-10 (April 8, 1998), § 31-301. Appeal procedure, and 4104 CRB-4-99-8 (Feb. 21, 2001), rev’d, 260 Conn. 21 (2002), § 31-278, § 31-303, and cited at § 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).

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.

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.

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.

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. Prac. Book § 4055.

CRB will not disturb finding where corrections sought in motion to correct contradict supported facts found by trial commissioner. See also, Wilkinson § 31-310.

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.

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.

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 Prac. 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 Prac. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 3 days prior to date of scheduled oral argument does not persuade CRB to consider documents timely. See Prac. Book § 4055.

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 Prac. 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 dismissable 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.

Rydecki v. West Hartford/Board of Education, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 22, 1613 CRB-1-93 (February 18, 1993).

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.

Cowles v. Colt’s Manufacturing Company, Inc., 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 19, 1071 CRD-1-90-7 (February 17, 1993).

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.

Appeal dismissed as trier’s Finding was issued as a result of an informal hearing. CRB Order vacated (January 14, 1993).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Issues addressed on appeal rendered moot where trial commissioner grants motion to set aside and reopen proceedings below.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Prac. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Plourde v. Scovill Manufacturing Co., 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 67, 521 CRD-5-86 (December 1, 1988).

CRD has power under Prac. Book § 4055 to dismiss appeal where claimant failed to file Motion to Correct or Reasons of Appeal.

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).

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 Conn. Prac. 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.

Sorbello v. Gagnon, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 3, 567 CRD-6-87 (August 12, 1988).

Matter remanded where transcript unavailable.

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 Prac. 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.

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.

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, 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 Prac. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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, infra.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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 Prac. 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).

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.

Champagne v. F. & S. Oil Co., 3 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 18, 423 CRD-5-85 (October 28, 1985).

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).

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).

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.

Gavin v. New Britain, 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 151, 46 CRD-6-81 (August 3, 1982).

Foley v. New Britain, 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 147, 47 CRD-6-81 (August 3, 1982).

See citation listed under § 7-433.

Karas v. Hamilton Standard Division/U.T.C., 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 26, 45 CRD-6-81 (February 20, 1981).

Ilewicz v. State, 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 5, 10 CRD-2-80 (April 2, 1980).

Golub v. State, 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 3, 4 CRD-2-79 (April 2, 1980).