Howard v. Child Guidance Clinic of Greater Waterbury, Inc.

CASE NO. 5508 CRB-5-09-11

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

JULY 20, 2010

VALERIE C. HOWARD

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

CHILD GUIDANCE CLINIC OF GREATER WATERBURY, INC.

EMPLOYER

and

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant is pro se in this appeal and did not appear at oral argument. In the proceedings below the claimant was represented by Ross Lessach, Esq. of The Dodd Law Firm, LLC, 1781 Highland Ave., Suite 105, Cheshire, CT 06410.

The respondents were represented by Neil Ambrose, Esq., Letizia, Ambrose & Falls, P.C., 1 Church Street, 4th Floor, New Haven, CT 06210.

This Petition for Review from the October 26, 2009 Finding & Award/Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Sixth District was heard May 21, 2010 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Nancy E. Salerno and Jack R. Goldberg.

OPINION

JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has appealed from the October 26, 2009 Finding and Award/Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Sixth District. In that Finding and Award the trial commissioner awarded the claimant permanent partial disability benefits for an eleven percent loss of use of the claimant’s left non-master shoulder and § 31-308a benefits. The trial commissioner denied the claimant’s claim for temporary total disability benefits and certain medical care on the basis that it was palliative. The trier also found that the claimant’s psychiatric condition was related to the injury to her left shoulder.

On November 16, 2009 the claimant filed a Petition for Review.1 However no other appeal documents were filed by the claimant. The claimant did not file Reasons of Appeal, a brief nor did she appear at oral argument. The claimant has not provided any specifics as to the legal basis for her appeal. While our case law is replete with references to the accommodations we generally confer upon claimants who represent themselves before this board, we cannot suspend a pro se’s need to comply with all procedural requirements, especially those where the accommodation would disserve the other party’s due process rights. We cannot speculate as to the appellant’s claim(s) of legal error. See Ostrowski v. Guida-Siebert Dairy Co., 5374 CRB-6-08-9 (April 28, 2010).

We therefore dismiss the claimant’s appeal from the October 26, 2009 Finding & Award/Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Sixth District with prejudice.

Commissioners Nancy E. Salerno and Jack R. Goldberg concur.

1 We note the claimant was represented at the trial level by Atty. Ross Lessach of The Dodd Law Firm. However, the appeal petition was completed by the claimant herself. Additionally the claimant continues to be represented by the The Dodd Law Firm in a number of ongoing issues. BACK TO TEXT