CASE NO. 5037 CRB-1-05-12
COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 8, 2006
GLEN ORNE LEASING/WEBSTER TRUCKING
CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP, INCORPORATED
The claimant appeared pro se.
The respondents were represented by Jonathan M. Zajac, Esq., P.O. Box 699, Avon, CT 06011-0699.
This Petition for Review from the December 1, 2005 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the First District was heard July 14, 2006 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Donald H. Doyle, Jr., and Nancy E. Salerno.
JOHN A MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The claimant appeals from the December 1, 2005 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the First District. In that Finding, the commissioner concluded the claimant was to reimburse the respondents $7,070.75 and the respondents were entitled to a moratorium on any past, present and future Chapter 568 benefits until the sum was paid. Finding ¶ B.
The instant matter flows from a February 26, 2003 work related injury sustained by the claimant. Following that injury the respondents filed a number of Forms 36 the approvals of which were the subject of another commissioner’s March 19, 2004 Finding and Memorandum. The Forms 36 filed by the respondents were approved and the commissioner found the claimant was no longer totally disabled as a result of the February 26, 2003 work related injury. That Finding was reviewed by this tribunal and affirmed in Ferrin v. Glen Orne Leasing/Webster Trucking, 4802 CRB-8-04-4 (March 28, 2005) (hereafter Ferrin I). In Ferrin I we held the commissioner’s determination was based on the credibility assigned to the evidence presented and as such his conclusion was not error.
The respondents in the instant matter sought repayment of sums paid to the claimant between May 7, 2003 and October 21, 2003 while the Forms 36 rulings were pending. The trial commissioner in the present appeal under consideration found the respondents were entitled to reimbursement. It is from that finding of respondents’ right to reimbursement that the claimant appeals.
At the outset, we note our records indicate the claimant did not request the production of the Formal Hearing transcript held October 21, 2005. Without an adequate record, we cannot engage in a meaningful review. Mackiewiecz v. Aetna Life & Casualty, 4558 CRB-8-02-8 (August 14, 2003). The duty to provide an adequate record falls on the appellant. The appellant here appears pro se and as our Supreme Court recently noted in Aley v. Aley, 97 Conn. App. 850, 853 (2006);
[I]t is the established policy of the Connecticut courts to be solicitous of pro se litigants and when it does not interfere with the rights of other parties to construe the rules of practice liberally in favor of the pro se party. . . . Although we allow pro se litigants some latitude, the right of self-representation provides no attendant license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law. (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Strobel v. Strobel, 64 Conn. App. 614, 617-18, 781 A.2d 356, cert. denied, 258 Conn. 937, 786 A.2d 426 (2001).
See also, Sellers v. Sellers Garage, Inc., 80 Conn. App. 15 (2003)(note 2).
We therefore dismiss the claimant’s appeal from the December 1, 2005 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the First District.
Commissioners Donald H. Doyle, Jr., and Nancy E. Salerno concur.