Rivera v. Arthur Novarro D/B/A Nova Floral Bizaar D/B/A Nova Florist and Greenhouse

CASE NO. 3013 CRB-5-95-3

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

JUNE 20, 1996

JUAN ROMAN RIVERA

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

CROSS-APPELLEE

v.

ARTHUR NOVARRO D/B/A NOVA FLORAL BIZAAR D/B/A NOVA FLORIST AND GREENHOUSE

EMPLOYER

NO RECORD OF INSURANCE

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

and

SECOND INJURY FUND

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

CROSS-APPELLANT

APPEARANCES:

The claimant1 was represented at the trial level by Leonard C. Reizfield, Esq., P.O. Box 1797, New Haven, CT 06507. The instant appeal was taken by the claimant, Juan Roman Rivera, pro se. The claimant did not appear at oral argument nor did he file any papers in support of his appeal or in defense of the Second Injury Fund’s appeal.

The respondent-employer was represented at the trial level by John Peck, Jr., Esq., Peck, Peck & Zito, 33 Whitney Ave., P.O. Box 1820, New Haven, CT 06508. No one appeared at oral argument on behalf of the respondent nor were any papers submitted pertaining to these appeals. Although counsel filed a letter requesting permission to withdraw as counsel.

The respondent, Second Injury Fund, was represented by Nancy Sussman, Esq., and Taka Iwashita, Esq., Assistant Attorneys General, 55 Elm St., Hartford, CT 06106.

These Petitions for Review from the March 8, 1995 Finding and Award and March 27, 1995 Order of the Commissioner acting for the Fifth District were heard February 23, 1996 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of Jesse M. Frankl, Chairman and Commissioners George Waldron and Robin L. Wilson.

DISMISSAL ORDER

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant, Juan Roman Rivera, and the respondent, Second Injury Fund, both filed petitions for review. The claimant’s petition was from the Commissioner acting for the Fifth District’s March 8, 1995 Finding and Award and the Fund’s appeal was from the trier’s March 27, 1995 Order. The claimant only filed a Petition For Review in support of his appeal. The Second Injury Fund filed a Petition For Review and certain motions seeking extensions of time to file certain appellate papers. However, while these extensions were granted, none of the papers for which an extension was sought were ever filed. Neither the claimant nor the Second Injury Fund filed a brief.

Both the claimant and the Second Injury Fund failed to actively pursue their appeals. As both parties failed to prosecute their appeals with proper diligence the instant appeals were dismissed in a ruling from the bench at oral argument held February 23, 1996. See Practice Book §4055. See also, Almonte v. ITT Sealectro, 2222 CRB-6-94-12, (decided December 11, 1995); Bourassa v. State, 2060 CRB-2-94-5 (decided Sept. 22, 1995); Perkins v. Rudy Fogg & Son, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 241,1697 CRB-2-93-4 (March 28, 1994); Divita v. Thames Valley Steel, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 50, 1541 CRB-2-92-10 (Jan. 26, 1994).

Finally, we must counsel all practitioners that it would appear that the more prudent practice would be to withdraw an appeal if a litigant does not wish to pursue an appeal. Permitting an appeal to wither on the judicial vine is a waste of judicial and administrative resources and arguably constitutes poor appellate practice.

Commissioners George Waldron and Robin L. Wilson concur.

1 This matter was captioned at the trial level so as to include Juan Roman Rivera and Jimmy Roman Rivera as the claimants. The appeal taken by the claimant in this matter was filed by Juan Roman Rivera. BACK TO TEXT