Redick v. State of Conn./Dept. of Income Maintenance

CASE NO. 2152 CRB 1-94-9

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

MARCH 22, 1996

FELIX REDICK

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF CONN./DEPT. OF INCOME MAINTENANCE

EMPLOYER

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented by George F. Murray, Esq., Murray & Murray, 737 Farmington Ave., West Hartford, CT 06119.

The respondent was represented by Michael Giammatteo, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, P. O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120.

This Petition for Review from the September 1, 1994 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Fifth District was heard June 9, 1995 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Roberta Smith Tracy and Amado J. Vargas.

DISMISSAL

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has filed a petition for review from the Fifth District Commissioner’s September 1, 1994 Finding and Dismissal. The claimant has failed to file a motion to correct. In addition, the claimant’s brief was filed untimely. Specifically, the Compensation Review Board Calendar for June 9, 1995 stated that briefs of appellants must be filed by April 21, 1995. The claimant filed his brief on June 7, 1995, which was only two days prior to the date of oral argument.

The claimant has failed to file a timely brief. As the claimant has neglected to actively pursue his appeal, we will dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4055. See Milardo v. Shuck Petroleum, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 279, 1559 CRB-8-92-11 (Nov. 22, 1993) (appeal dismissed for failure to file timely brief); Divita v. Thames Valley Steel, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 50, 1541 CRB-2-92-10 (Jan. 26, 1994); Hargatai v. Copy Data, Inc., 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 106, 107, 1475 CRB-4-92-7 (June 2, 1993). We note that the issue of whether the claimant’s appeal was timely filed was raised by the respondent. However, as we are dismissing the claimant’s appeal on other grounds, we need not address that issue.

The claimant’s appeal is dismissed.

Commissioners Roberta Smith Tracy and Amado J. Vargas concur.