Warchola v. U.S. Gypsum Specialists

CASE NO. 1444 CRB-1-92-6

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD/DIVISION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

JUNE 2, 1993

JOHN WARCHOLA

CLAIMANT-APPELLEE

v.

U.S. GYPSUM SPECIALISTS

EMPLOYER

and

GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES INC.

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented by Dennis A. McCormack, Esq., Wall and McCormack, 80 Prospect Hill Road, Windsor, CT 06095. However, no one appeared on behalf of the claimant at oral argument.

The respondents were represented by John M. Walsh, Jr. Esq., Lynch, Traub, Keefe and Errante, P.C., P. O. Box 1612, New Haven, CT 06506.

This Petition for Review from the June 19, 1992 Finding and Award of the Commissioner at Large acting for the First District was heard May 21, 1993 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse Frankl and Commissioners George Waldron and Donald H. Doyle.

OPINION

JESSE FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The respondent filed a Petition for Review from the June 19, 1992 Finding and Award of the Commissioner at Large acting for the First District. The June 19, 1992 Finding and Award was rendered after an informal hearing before the trial commissioner. The respondent took the instant appeal and request that its appeal be sustained and the June 19, 1992 Finding and Award be vacated.

The respondent contends, inter alia, that an appeal taken from the issuance of a Finding and Award following an informal hearing must be sustained in the absence of a record of the proceeding below.1 We agree that in the absence of a record of the proceedings below the matter must be remanded for further proceedings. See e.g., Nevers v. Environmental Waste Removal, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 96, 1166 CRD-5-91-1 (1992); Kempesta v. Hendels Gas and Oil Co., 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 152, 998 CRD-2-90-4 (1991); Palmer v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney., 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 150, 1079 CRD-8-90-7 (1991).

We therefore remand the instant matter for further proceedings.

Commissioners George Waldron and Donald H. Doyle concur.

1 The C.R.B issued an Order December 28, 1992 in which the respondent’s appeal was dismissed “as there must be further proceedings below before an appeal will lie.” The respondent made a Motion to Modify Order and on January 14, 1993 the December 28, 1992 Order was vacated. BACK TO TEXT