Divita v. Thames Valley Steel

CASE NO. 1541 CRB-2-92-10

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD/DIVISION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

JANUARY 26, 1994

TIMOTHY DIVITA

CLAIMANT-APPELLEE

v.

THAMES VALLEY STEEL

EMPLOYER

and

SECOND INJURY FUND

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented at the proceedings below by Scott Roberts, Esq., 349 Mitchell Street, P.O. Box 883, Groton, CT 06340.

The respondent Second Injury Fund was represented at the proceedings below by Jeffrey Drake, Paralegal and on appeal by Brewster Blackall, Esq., Office of the Attorney General, P.O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06101-0120.

This Petition for Review from the October 22, 1992 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Second District was decided on the basis of papers submitted for the October 29, 1993 hearing before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse Frankl and Commissioners George A. Waldron and Donald H. Doyle, Jr.

OPINION

JESSE FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The respondent-appellant Second Injury Fund has petitioned for review from the October 22, 1992 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Second District. Oral argument was scheduled for October 29, 1993 and the matter was considered on the basis of papers submitted.

The only document submitted by the Second Injury Fund in support of its appeal is a Petition for Review. The matter is therefore dismissed pursuant to Practice Book Sec. 4055 as the appellant has failed to prosecute the appeal with proper diligence. See also, Hargatai v. Copy Data, Inc., 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 106, 1475 CRB-4-92-7 (1993); Smith v. City of New Haven, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 93, 1154 CRD-3-90-12 (1992).

Commissioners George A. Waldron and Donald H. Doyle, Jr. concur.