Brockett v. Branford Paving, Inc.

CASE NO. 1840 CRB-3-93-9

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

APRIL 19, 1995

ROBERT BROCKETT

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

BRANFORD PAVING, INC.

EMPLOYER

and

HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented at the trial level by Sharyn D’Urso, 35 Elm St., New Haven, CT 06510. Claimant initiated the appeal pro se but subsequent appeal papers indicate that claimant was ultimately represented by Edan F. Calabrese, Esq., 127 Cedar Street, Branford, CT 06405. However, no one appeared on behalf of the claimant at oral argument.

The respondents were represented by Jason M. Dodge, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton & Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Blvd., Glastonbury, CT 06033-4412.

This Petition for Review from the August 26, 1993 Finding of Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Third District was heard October 28, 1994 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Angelo L. dos Santos and Nancy A. Brouillet.

DISMISSAL ORDER

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant’s petition for review was filed on September 10, 1993, approximately fifteen days after the trial commissioner’s August 26, 1993 Finding of Dismissal.1 The claimant’s petition for review was not filed within the time limit prescribed by § 31-301(a), which states that “[a]t any time within ten days after entry of an award by the commissioner, . . . either party may appeal therefrom to the compensation review board by filing in the office of the commissioner . . . an appeal petition . . . .”. The timeliness of the claimant’s appeal implicates our subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. Johnson v. ARA Services Inc., 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 19, 765 CRD-7-88-8 (1989). We conclude that the claimant’s petition for review was not filed within the time limits required by § 31-301(a) and we thus dismiss it as untimely.

Moreover, even if jurisdiction existed to consider the claimant’s appeal, we would dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4055. See Burke v. Abacus Transfer & Storage, 1782 CRB-3-93-7 (decided November 3, 1994); Perkins v. Rudy Fogg & Son, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 241, 1697 CRB-2-93-4 (March 28, 1994); Divita v. Thames Valley Steel, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 50, 1541 CRB-2-92-10 (1994); Hargatai v. Copy Data, Inc., 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 106, 107, 1475 CRB-4-92-7 (1993); Jones v. Middletown Mfg., 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 56, 57, 1296 CRD-8-91-9 (1993).

The claimant also moved to submit additional evidence. As the appeal is dismissable for late filing, we need not consider any other issues raised.

Commissioners Angelo L. dos Santos and Nancy A. Brouillet concur.

1 Claimant filed the appeal pro se. However, via letter dated July 22, 1994 Edan F. Calabrese, Esq., on behalf of claimant, requested an extension of time to file his brief. An extension of time was granted to August 15, 1994. However, no brief was filed on behalf of the claimant. BACK TO TEXT