Draughn v. Yale-New Haven Hospital

CASE NO. 4055 CRB-08-99-06

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

AUGUST 29, 2000

EMMA DRAUGHN

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

YALE-NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL

EMPLOYER

SELF-INSURED

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was not represented at oral argument. Notice sent to Stephen D. Jacobs, Esq., Jacobs & Jacobs, P.C., 71 Catlin Street, Kennedy Building, P.O. Box 193, Meriden, CT 06450-0193.

The respondent was represented by Andrew Cohen, Esq., Letizia, Ambrose & Cohen, P.C., One Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510.

This Petition for Review from the May 25, 1999 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Eighth District was heard May 19, 2000 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners George A. Waldron and Donald H. Doyle.

DISMISSAL ORDER

JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The claimant filed a petition for review from the May 25, 1999 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Eighth District on June 2, 1999. On June 25, 1999, the respondent moved to dismiss her appeal on the ground that the claimant had failed to file timely Reasons of Appeal in accordance with Admin. Reg. § 31-301-2. A second Motion to Dismiss was filed on December 2, 1999, alleging that the claimant had also failed to file a timely brief. Oral argument on these motions was originally scheduled for January 21, 2000.

At the request of the claimant’s counsel, who informed this board that he was ill on the day before the scheduled argument, we continued the matter to May 19, 2000. The respondents filed a third Motion to Dismiss on March 17, 2000, citing the claimant’s “continued and repeated failure to prosecute” by failing to file any sort of document in support of her appeal. The claimant’s counsel submitted no written response, nor did he attempt to belatedly file Reasons for Appeal or a brief. His next communication with this board was via a fax that we (again) received on the day prior to oral argument. In it, counsel moved for another postponement of the proceedings, citing a conflicting Superior Court matter as the reason for his request. This motion was swiftly denied. Predictably, no one appeared to represent the claimant at oral argument the next day.

This matter requires little analysis. Over a year has passed since the claimant filed her petition for review, and none of the required documents have been offered in support of her appeal. The appellant offers no explanation for this phenomenon. Thus, the proper course of action is quite clear. Pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1, we hereby dismiss the claimant’s petition for review for failure to proceed with due diligence. State of Connecticut v. Todd Rose, 3896 CRB-2-98-9 (March 3, 1999); Reynolds v. Atlantic Foods, 3676 CRB-7-97-9 (Oct. 20, 1998). This board will not allow an appeal to await prosecution indefinitely absent a compelling cause for delay.

Commissioners George A. Waldron and Donald H. Doyle concur.