Lopez v. A. Anastasio Fence Company

CASE NO. 5101 CRB-4-06-6

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

MAY 23, 2007

EDWIN LOPEZ

CLAIMANT-APPELLEE

v.

A. ANASTASIO FENCE COMPANY

EMPLOYER

NO RECORD OF INSURANCE

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT

and

SECOND INJURY FUND

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented by Howard Evan Ignal, Esq., Weinstein, Ignal, Napolitano & Shapiro, 350 Fairfield Avenue, P.O. Box 9177, Bridgeport, CT 06601.

The respondent-employer was represented by Roy W. Moss, Esq., 102 Highland Avenue, Rowayton, CT 06853. Respondent did not file a brief or attend oral argument in this appeal.

The respondent, Second Injury Fund was represented by Richard Hine, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120. However, they did not file a brief or attend oral argument.

This Petition for Review from the June 1, 2006 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District was heard January 19, 2007 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Amado J. Vargas and Scott A. Barton.

Ruling Re: Claimant’s Motion to Dismiss

JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The instant matter was heard by the Compensation Review Board at oral argument held January 19, 2007. The matter was calendared for oral argument for the purpose, inter alia, of permitting the appellant an opportunity to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute with due diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1 and for the consideration of the Motion to Dismiss filed by the claimant on December 7, 2006.

Counsel for the respondent-employer filed a timely petition for review on June 20, 2006 from the Finding and Award issued on June 1, 2006. Since that date counsel for the respondent-employer did not file Reasons for Appeal, file a brief in support of this appeal or attend the oral argument on the appeal. Counsel for the respondent-employer also did not file any motions for an extension of time in which to submit Reasons for Appeal or a brief, and did not seek to postpone the hearing on this appeal.

Based on the foregoing facts, we conclude the respondent-employer has failed to prosecute this appeal with appropriate diligence. Since the appellant has failed to prosecute its appeal in compliance with Practice Book § 85-1, the claimant’s Motion to Dismiss is herein granted.

Commissioners Amado J. Vargas and Scott A. Barton concur in this decision.