Reels v. Economy Gutters

CASE NO. 5511 CRB-2-09-11

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

JULY 20, 2010

DARRELL REELS

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

ECONOMY GUTTERS

EMPLOYER

and

GENERAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented by Adam A. Laben, Esq., Ansell & Laben Law Offices, 94 Broad Street, New London, CT 06320.

The respondents were represented by Melissa Murello, Esq., Montstream & May, LLP, Salmon Brook Corporate Park, 655 Winding Brook Drive, P.O. Box 1087, Glastonbury, CT 06033-6087.

This Petition for Review from the November 6, 2009 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Second 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 appeals from the November 6, 2009 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Second District. In his decision the trial commissioner held that the claimant’s average weekly wage was $200.00 per week. In the proceedings before the trial commissioner the claimant agreed that his compensation should be calculated on a basis of amounts he alleged were paid in cash and exceeded the $200 weekly sum found by the commissioner to have been paid by check.

On November 23, 2009, claimant’s counsel filed an appeal on the claimant’s behalf. On December 10, 2009 a Motion For Extension of Time to File Reasons of Appeal was filed and subsequently granted. The time for filing was extended until January 4, 2010. From that time until the date of oral argument the appellant did not file any documentation in support of the appeal.1

The respondent-appellee filed a Motion To Dismiss on March 1, 2010 and another Motion To Dismiss on April 7, 2010. This board scheduled oral argument for May 21, 2010. At issue before the board was respondent’s Motions To Dismiss as well as an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to Prac. Book § 85-1.

Claimant’s counsel appeared at oral argument. The board informed counsel that other than the Petition for Review and Motion To Extend Time For Filing Reasons of Appeal it was not in receipt of any documents furthering prosecution of the appeal; no Reasons Of Appeal, no Motion To Correct and no brief was filed by the claimant. At oral argument no credible explanation was offered for failing to provide any such documentation.

We therefore are presented with an appeal that fails to assert the legal grounds of error. We cannot speculate as to a party’s basis for filing an appeal. Ostrowski v. Guida-Siebert Dairy Co., 5374 CRB-6-08-9 (April 28, 2010). For all the reasons provided above, we dismiss the appeal.

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

1 On the day of oral argument, counsel submitted a Motion For Permissions To File Late Brief and Reasons For Appeal. BACK TO TEXT