Wrice v. Sam’s Club

The claimant was not represented by counsel on appeal. At trial, he was represented by Martin McQuillan, Esq., Januszewski, McQuillan & Denigris, 165 West Main Street, New Britain, CT 06051, who later withdrew his representation with the written consent of the claimant.

The respondents were not represented at oral argument. Notice sent to James Baldwin, Esq., Coles, Baldwin & Craft, L.L.C., 1261 Post Road, Fairfield, CT 06430.

This Petition for Review from the March 8, 1999 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Sixth District was considered November 19, 1999 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Angelo L. dos Santos and George A. Waldron.

DISMISSAL ORDER

JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has petitioned for review from the March 8, 1999 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Sixth District. This petition was filed on the claimant’s behalf by his trial counsel, Martin McQuillan, who moved to withdraw his appearance as counsel on November 2, 1999. The claimant filed an affidavit in conjunction with that motion explaining that he did not wish Attorney McQuillan or his firm to represent him any further, and that McQuillan never agreed to act as counsel on this appeal. The petition for review and a Motion for Extension of Time to File Reasons of Appeal were filed by McQuillan on the claimant’s behalf while the claimant was attempting to obtain another lawyer. The Motion for Extension of Time was granted, and the claimant was given until June 8, 1999 to file Reasons of Appeal. These were never submitted, and the respondents moved to dismiss the appeal on July 26, 1999. To date, the claimant has not filed any additional documents in support of his appeal, nor has he arranged substitute counsel.

Given that both the claimant and his counsel agree that he never intended to act as the claimant’s attorney in this matter, we grant Attorney McQuillan’s request to withdraw his representation. We also grant the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss the claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1. See Green v. Yale University, 3842 CRB-3-98-6 (Aug. 18, 1999); Thomas v. Cash Oil, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 410, 2272 CRB-3-95-1 (Aug. 28, 1996); Divita v. Thames Valley Steel, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 50, 1541 CRB-2-92-10 (Jan. 26, 1994). Without Reasons for Appeal, a brief, or an appearance at oral argument on his own behalf, there is nothing for this board to consider on review.