Totten v. Tyree Brothers Environmental Services, Inc.

CASE NO. 2240 CRB-2-94-12

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

DECEMBER 11, 1995

FRANK TOTTEN

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

CROSS-APPELLEE

v.

TYREE BROTHERS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.

EMPLOYER

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

CROSS-APPELLANT

and

THE STATE INSURANCE FUND OF NEW YORK

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

and

SECOND INJURY FUND

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented by Mark Oberlatz, Esq., O’Brien, Shafner, Stuart, Kelly & Morris, P.C., 475 Bridge Street, Groton, CT 06340.

The employer was represented by James Baldwin, Esq., Cotter, Cotter & Sohon, P.C., 500 Boston Post Rd., Milford, CT 06460.

The State Insurance Fund of New York was represented by James Sullivan, Esq., Maher & Williams, 1300 Post Rd., Fairfield, CT 06430.

The Second Injury Fund was represented by Philip Schulz, Esq., Office of the Attorney General, 55 Elm St., Hartford, CT 06141-0120, who did not appear at oral argument.

This Petition for Review from the December 14, 1994 Denial of the Claimant’s Request to Compel Production of Documents of the Commissioner acting for the Second District was heard October 27, 1995 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Roberta Smith Tracy and Amado J. Vargas.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The claimant filed a timely appeal from the December 14, 1994 Denial of the Claimant’s Request to Compel Production of Documents of the Commissioner acting for the Second District. In that order of denial, the trial commissioner stated that she did not have jurisdiction to compel the State Insurance Fund of New York to produce documents. The employer filed a cross-appeal in which it contended that without first conducting a formal hearing on the issue, the trial commissioner erroneously ruled that she did not have jurisdiction over the production request.

At oral argument before this board, the claimant’s attorney stated that all of his requests for production have been complied with. The voluntary compliance with the claimant’s request for production has resulted in the claimant’s appeal being moot. The claimant’s appeal is therefore dismissed. See Pothier v. Stanley-Bostitch/The Bostitch Company, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 153, 1850 CRB-3-93-9 (4/15/94); Ward v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 110, 1735 CRB-1-93-5 (6/4/93). Moreover, the parties agreed at oral argument that the issue of jurisdiction is presently being considered at a formal hearing. Accordingly, we will not now consider that issue.

The claimant’s appeal is dismissed and the employer’s cross-appeal is dismissed.

Commissioners Roberta Smith Tracy and Amado J. Vargas concur.