Gostyla & David A. Clukey, D.C. v. Masonic Home & Hospital

CASE NO. 2156 CRB-8-94-9

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

OCTOBER 4, 1995

THOMAS GOSTYLA and DAVID A. CLUKEY, D.C.

CLAIMANT-APPELLEE and MEDICAL PROVIDER-APPELLANT

v.

MASONIC HOME & HOSPITAL

EMPLOYER

and

CONNECTICUT HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was not represented at oral argument.

The medical provider was not represented at oral argument, and has been representing himself in these proceedings. Notice sent to David A. Clukey, D.C., 265 North Main St., Wallingford, CT 06492.

The respondents were not represented at oral argument. Notice sent to Suzanne M. Rathbun, Esq., Byrne & Letizia, Woodbridge Corporate Park, 1764 Litchfield Tpke., Woodbridge, CT 06525.

This Petition for Review from the September 12, 1994 Determination of the Ad Hoc Dispute Resolution Panel acting for the Eighth District was heard August 25, 1995 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Roberta S. Tracy and Michael S. Miles.

DISMISSAL

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The medical provider, David A. Clukey, has petitioned for review from the September 12, 1994 Determination of the Ad Hoc Dispute Resolution Panel for the Eighth District. Notice of the decision was sent to the parties on September 12, 1994. See Conaci v. Hartford Hospital, 36 Conn. App. 298 (1994); O’Connor v. United Parcel Service, 1741 CRB-4-93-5 (decided March 30, 1995). The petition for review was not filed, however, until Friday, September 23, 1994. Thus, it would appear to be one day late on its face pursuant to § 31-301(a). The respondents accordingly have filed a motion to dismiss contesting this board’s jurisdiction over the appeal. See Practice Book § 4056.

The medical provider has not attempted any explanation of this apparent defect, nor has he filed any of the documents required in support of his appeal such as Reasons of Appeal or a brief. We therefore dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute with due diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4055. See Esquillin v. Pinto Lavado Enterprises, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 148, 1914 CRB-2-93-12 (Feb. 1, 1995); Green v. Labor Force of America, Inc., 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 146, 1908 CRB-3-93-11 (Feb. 1, 1995); Burke v. Abacus Transfer & Storage, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 19, 20, 1782 CRB-3-93-7 (Nov. 3, 1994).

Commissioners Roberta S. Tracy and Michael S. Miles concur.