Chuley v. Pratt & Whitney

CASE NO. 3375 CRB-3-96-7

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

MARCH 7, 1997

PETER CHULEY

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

PRATT & WHITNEY

EMPLOYER

and

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented at the trial level by Melissa Buckley, Esq., Buckley & Buckley, 250 Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510. The appeal in this matter was taken by the claimant pro se.

The respondents were represented by Robert M. Brennan, Esq., Law Offices of Robert M. Brennan, 265 Church Street, Suite 802, New Haven, CT 06510-7014.

This Petition for Review from the June 27, 1996 Finding and Award and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Third District was heard January 24, 1997 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners James J. Metro and John A. Mastropietro.

DISMISSAL ORDER

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The pro se claimant has petitioned for review from the June 27, 1996 Finding and Award and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Third District. The petition for review was received by the Workers’ Compensation Commission on July 3, 1996 and was filed by the claimant himself. On October 23, 1996 a letter was received from Atty. Melissa Buckley indicating that she did not represent the claimant with regard to this appeal, although she was claimant’s counsel in the proceedings before the trial commissioner.

As of the time of oral argument the only documents filed with the Compensation Review Board were the pro se claimant’s July 3, 1996 Petition For Review. In addition to the customary information contained in the claimant’s Petition For Review the claimant included some additional information which is indecipherable. On the day of oral argument, January 24, 1997, an indecipherable undated letter from the claimant along with a cassette tape and copies of what appear to be various medical reports and letters pertaining to the claimant were received at the Compensation Review Board. On the face of many of the accompanying documents and reports are indecipherable handwritten comments.

This matter was calendared before the Compensation Review Board so as to permit the claimant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed on the basis of Practice Book 7 4184A (failure to prosecute). The claimant did not appear at oral argument and the documents filed in support of his appeal were those already noted above. We therefore dismiss the appeal on the basis of Practice Book §4184A and the claimant’s failure to prosecute.

However, even if we were to consider the indecipherable documents forwarded to the Compensation Review Board on the day of oral argument, we would note that there is no indication that either the letter or the accompanying document copies were provided to opposing counsel. Thus, these documents will not be considered. See Prac. Book §4014. See also, Pressley v. Pressley, 185 Conn. 180 (1981); Osterlund v. State, 129 Conn. 591 (1943).

Furthermore, even if we were to construe the filings of January 24, 1997 as a Motion To Present Additional Evidence before the Compensation Review Board, we note that the letter is practically speaking unreadable. The accompanying copies of documents appear to be either documents which were available prior to the trial commissioner’s decision or were part of the record.1 Thus, even if we were to consider this supplemental filing as a Motion To Submit Additional Evidence, the motion would be denied as the claimant has not satisfied the criteria set out in Administrative Regulation §31-301-9. Sec. 31-301-9 provides:

If any party to an appeal shall allege that additional evidence or testimony is material and that there were good reasons for failure to present it in the proceedings before the commissioner, he shall by written motion request an opportunity to present such evidence or testimony to the compensation review division, indicating in such motion the nature of such evidence or testimony, the basis of the claim of materiality, and the reasons why it was not presented in the proceedings before the commissioner.

See also, Boynton v. American Cyanamid, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 58, 1267 CRD-8-91-8 (April 6, 1993) Lange v. J & B Excavating & Paving, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 42, 1249 CRD-3-91-6 (March 18, 1993).

We therefore dismiss the claimant’s appeal.

Commissioners James J. Metro and John J. Mastropietro concur.

1 The record in this matter is quite extensive as one of the injuries for which the claimant claims compensation dates back to April 22, 1959. BACK TO TEXT