Hess v. Connecticut Veterinary Hospital et al.

CASE NO. 2255 CRB-6-94-12

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

AUGUST 10, 1995

JILL HESS

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

CONNECTICUT VETERINARY HOSPITAL

EMPLOYER

and

ITT HARTFORD

INSURER

and

AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO.

INSURER

and

WATERFORD VETERINARY HOSPITAL

EMPLOYER

and

VALLEY VETERINARY HOSPITAL

EMPLOYER

and

AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE CO.

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented by Edward D. O’Brien, Esq., 103 Woodland St., Hartford, CT 06105.

The respondents Connecticut Veterinary Hospital and ITT Hartford were represented by Joseph E. Skelly, Jr., Esq., Edward M. Henfey & Assoc., 55 Farmington Ave., Hartford, CT 06105.

The respondents Connecticut Veterinary Hospital and Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. were represented by David C. Davis, Esq., McGann, Bartlett & Brown, 281 Hartford Turnpike, Vernon, CT 06066.

The respondent Waterford Veterinary Hospital was represented by Jason M. Dodge, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton & Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Blvd., Glastonbury, CT 06033-4412.

The respondents Valley Veterinary Hospital and American Motorists Insurance Co. were represented by Polly L. Orenstein, Esq., 127 Washington Avenue, P. O. Box 35, North Haven, CT 06473.

This Petition for Review from the December 2, 1994 Findings of Facts and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Sixth District was heard May 5, 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 claimant petitioned for review from the December 2, 1994 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner for the Sixth District. Each respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the petition for review was untimely. The claimant has also failed to file reasons for appeal pursuant to Administrative Regulation § 31-301-2, a Motion to Correct pursuant to Administrative Regulation § 31-301-4, or a brief. At oral argument, the claimant’s counsel indicated that her appeal would be withdrawn, as the claimant is deceased and has no heirs. We indicated that we would dismiss the appeal if a withdrawal was not filed.

To date, we have not received the claimant’s withdrawal of appeal. Therefore, we are dismissing the claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4055. See McBrearity v D.B.D., Inc., 1781 CRB-7-93-7 n.1 (decided April 18, 1995); Burke v. Abacus Transfer & Storage, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 19, 1782 CRB-3-93-7 (Nov. 3, 1994). Therefore, the respondents’ motions to dismiss are moot.

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