Palko v. State of Connecticut/Department of Corrections

CASE NO. 4018 CRB-02-99-03

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

MARCH 22, 2000

EDWARD PALKO, JR.

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT/DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EMPLOYER

SELF-INSURED

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

APPEARANCES:

The pro se claimant did not appear at oral argument.

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

This Petition for Review from the March 17, 1999 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Eighth District was heard December 3, 1999 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Angelo L. dos Santos and Stephen B. Delaney.

DISMISSAL ORDER

JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has petitioned for review from the March 17, 1999 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Eighth District. His former attorney, Gabriel H. Cusanelli, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, which was granted on May 14, 1999. Prior to withdrawing, Cusanelli had filed a Motion to Correct on behalf of the claimant, which the trial commissioner denied. The claimant was notified of counsel’s request to withdraw, and was instructed to obtain new counsel or to file an appearance on his own behalf if he wished to pursue his appeal. Since then, nothing has been filed in support of the claimant’s cause, including required appellate documents such as Reasons for Appeal and a brief. The respondent moved to dismiss the claimant’s appeal on November 2, 1999, on the ground that this matter has not been diligently prosecuted.

Oral argument on this motion was scheduled for the morning of December 3, 1999. At 3:55 P.M. on December 2, 1999, the claimant faxed to the Chairman of this commission a request for a continuance, stating that he was living in Virginia, had not been able to find an attorney to represent him, and now wished to represent himself. The claimant did not provide a phone number at which he could be reached. Due to the last-minute nature of the claimant’s plea, and the fact that he had over six months to take some sort of action on his appeal, we deny the request for a continuance. 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).

Commissioners Angelo L. dos Santos and Stephen B. Delaney concur.