Mursko v. R & K Spero

CASE NO. 4159 CRB-03-99-12

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

NOVEMBER 30, 2000

NANCYMAE MURSKO

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

R & K SPERO

EMPLOYER

and

PACIFIC INDEMNITY

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant appeared pro se at oral argument.

The respondents were represented by Richard G. Kascak, Jr., Esq., Mihaly & Kascak, 925 White Plains Road, Trumbull, CT 06611.

This Petition for Review from the November 22, 1999 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Third District was discussed on July 14, 2000 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Robin L. Wilson and Leonard S. Paoletta.

DISMISSAL ORDER

JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has filed a petition for review from the November 22, 1999 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Third District. She is unrepresented by counsel, and has not filed any documents that might explain the basis of her appeal such as Reasons of Appeal, a brief, or a Motion to Correct the award. See Admin. Reg. §§ 31-301-2, 31-301-4. Also, her petition for review was filed on December 6, 1999, which is more than ten days after the date of the trial commissioner’s decision. The respondents have accordingly moved to dismiss the claimant’s appeal.

As the claimant does not allege that she failed to receive notice of the trier’s decision within the ten-day appeal period of § 31-301(a), this board lacks jurisdiction to consider her appeal. Kudlacz v. Lindberg Heat Treating Company, 250 Conn. 581 (1999); Tucholski v. Rex Forge, 3756 CRB-6-98-1 (Jan. 8, 1999). Therefore, we must dismiss it as a matter of law. Furthermore, though this board attempts to give as much leeway as possible to pro se claimants, some attempt must still be made to comply with our regulations governing appeals. If the claimant does not file anything, neither the defense nor this board has any way of knowing why the claimant thinks that the trial commissioner committed reversible error. In such situations, it is our duty to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute with due diligence under Practice Book § 85-1. See Soden v. Custom Bottles of CT, Inc., 3849 CRB-5-98-6 (March 3, 1999); Hyatt v. Ames Department Stores, Inc., 3533 CRB-6-97-2 (May 14, 1998). Because the claimant has not provided this board with a sufficient excuse as to why she filed nothing in support of her appeal for eight months, we also dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute in a timely fashion.

Commissioners Robin L. Wilson and Leonard S. Paoletta concur.