Krauss v. Arthur “Skip” Beebe d/b/a Beebe Woodworking et al.

CASE NO. 1915 CRB-2-93-12

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

JANUARY 31, 1995

RONALD KRAUSS

CLAIMANT-APPELLEE

v.

ARTHUR “SKIP” BEEBE, d/b/a BEEBE WOODWORKING

EMPLOYER

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT

NO RECORD OF INSURANCE

and

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST THE KING

and

HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

and

SECOND INJURY FUND

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented by Angelo Paul Sevarino, Esq., 110 Day Hill Road, Windsor, CT 06095-0968.

Respondent-employer, Arthur “Skip” Beebe did not appear at oral argument. However, respondent-employer was represented by David Condon, Esq., Waller, Smith & Palmer, P. O. Box 88, New London, CT 06320.

Respondent-appellee, The Church of Christ The King was represented by Richard Aiken, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton & Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Boulevard, Glastonbury, CT 06033-4412.

The Second Injury Fund did not appear at oral argument. However, the Fund was represented by Philip M. Schulz, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, P. O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120.

This Petition for Review from the November 30, 1993 Finding and Award Of Compensation of the Commissioner acting for the Second District was heard January 13, 1995 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Roberta S. D’Oyen and Amado J. Vargas.

DISMISSAL ORDER

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The employer timely petitioned for review from the Second District Commissioner’s November 30, 1993 Finding and Award Of Compensation. To date, the employer has failed to file his reasons for appeal, a brief, or a motion to correct.

As the employer has neglected to actively pursue his appeal, we must 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, 1697 CRB-2-93-4 (Decided 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). We dismissed the employer’s appeal in a ruling announced from the bench by this panel at oral argument on January 13, 1995.

Commissioners Roberta S. D’Oyen and Amado J. Vargas concur.