Santino v. Richard Auto Transport et al.

CASE NO. 3227 CRB 3-95-7

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

OCTOBER 9, 1996

PETER SANTINO

CLAIMANT-APPELLEE

v.

RICHARD AUTO TRANSPORT

EMPLOYER

NO RECORD OF INSURANCE

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT

and

F & A TRUCKING CO.

EMPLOYER

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

and

SECOND INJURY FUND

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented by John Shannon, Esq., Jacobs, Jacobs & Shannon, P.C., 265 Orange St., New Haven, CT 06510, who did not appear at oral argument.

The employers were not represented, and did not appear at oral argument.

The Fund was represented by Richard Hine, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, 55 Elm St., P.O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120, who did not appear at oral argument.

This Petition for Review from the June 29, 1995 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Third District was heard April 19, 1996 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Nancy A. Brouillet and Robin L. Wilson.

DISMISSAL

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The respondent employer Richard Auto Transport has filed a petition for review from the Third District Commissioner’s June 29, 1995 Finding and Award. The employer has failed to file reasons of appeal, a motion to correct, or a brief. In addition, the employer did not appear at oral argument before this Board.

As the employer has neglected to actively pursue its appeal, we dismiss the employer’s 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); 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).

The employer’s appeal is dismissed.

Commissioners Nancy A. Brouillet and Robin L. Wilson concur.