Hargatai v. Copy Data, Inc.

CASE NO. 1475 CRB-4-92-7

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

JUNE 2, 1993

CHRISTOPHER HARGATAI

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

COPY DATA, INC.

EMPLOYER

and

ATLANTIC MUTUAL INS. CO.

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented by Robert Lesser, Esq., and Stanton Lesser, Esq., Lesser and Sobel, 1000 Lafayette Boulevard, Bridgeport, CT 06604. However, no one appeared at oral argument, nor was any brief filed.

The respondents were represented by Kevin Maher, Esq., Maher and Williams, P.O. Box 269, Bridgeport, CT 06601. Although no one appeared at oral argument, a brief was filed on behalf of the respondents.

This Petition for Review from the July 20, 1992 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner for the Fourth District was decided on the basis of papers submitted and 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 claimant in the instant matter has filed a Petition for Review from the July 20, 1992 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner for the Fourth District. To date no Reasons of Appeal nor brief was filed in the instant matter. We do note that claimant’s counsel filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Reasons of Appeal and Motion to Correct. That Motion was filed May 18, 1993, three days prior to the scheduled date for oral argument and arguably some 9 months after such a motion would have been considered timely.1

We therefore dismiss the instant appeal for failure to prosecute. See Practice Book Sec. 4055. See also, Smith v. City of New Haven, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 93 , 1154 CRD 3-90-12 (1992); Lauriano v. Reliance Automotive, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 96, 934 CRD-8-89-11 (1991).

Commissioners George Waldron and Donald H. Doyle concur.

1 Additionally we note that claimant’s counsel filed a Motion for Postponement of Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss until June 21, 1993. That motion was originally received by fax on May 20, 1993 and by mail on May 21, 1993 and denied May 21, 1993. BACK TO TEXT