Case ID: conn-app_48/html/0250-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHARLES BENLOCK v. NEW HAVEN TERMINAL/CILCO TERMINAL ET AL.
    (AC 17178)
    Landau, Schaller and Freedman, Js.
    Argued February 26
    officially released March 24, 1998
    
      Scott Wilson Williams, for the appellants (defendants).
    
      Carolyn P. Kelly, for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendants appeal from the decision of the workers’ compensation review board affirming the decision of the workers’ compensation commissioner, who found that the plaintiffs myocardial infarction was a compensable injury. The defendants’ counsel on appeal was also trial counsel, and this appeal can best be categorized as a valiant but futile effort to retry the case in this court. No novel principles of law or appellate procedure are involved and to discuss the defendants’ claims would serve no useful purpose. See Byrne v. Trice, 170 Conn. 442, 442-43, 365 A.2d 1063 (1976); Lord v. Lord, 44 Conn. App. 370, 376, 689 A.2d 509, cert. denied, 241 Conn. 913, 696 A.2d 985 (1997).

The decision of the compensation review board is affirmed.