Source: https://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/2016/59895862crb.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 14:21:37+00:00

Document:
The claimant filed the appeal on his own behalf but did not appear at oral argument.
The respondents were represented by Matthew Necci, Esq., Halloran and Sage, One Goodwin Square, 225 Asylum Street, Hartford, CT 06103.
These Petitions for Review are from the following; the June 27, 2013 Finding and Award and November 12, 2013 Finding and Dismissal of Commissioner Daniel E. Dilzer acting for the Third District (Case No. 5862 CRB-7-13-7), and the January 28, 2015 Finding and Decision of Charles F. Senich the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District (Case No. 5989 CRB-7-15-2). These appeals were heard January 22, 2016 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Ernie R. Walker and Stephen M. Morelli.
Oral argument for these matters was originally scheduled for January 24, 2014. At the request of the claimant-appellant, the matter was postponed. Thereafter, oral argument was scheduled for April 25, 2014 and again the matter was postponed at the request of the claimant-appellant. Likewise, oral argument was scheduled for November 21, 2014 and postponed at the request of the claimant-appellant.
Finally, oral argument was scheduled for January 22, 2016. The claimant was advised that the matter would not be subject to rescheduling and alerted to the possibility that the matter could be subject to a dismissal with prejudice. Additional communications were received from the claimant which, in pertinent part, indicated that appearing in person before the board was problematic for the claimant. A letter was sent to the claimant advising that the board would attempt to accommodate the claimant and permit the claimant to participate in oral argument by telephone. At the time of oral argument, January 22, 2016, the claimant did not participate in proceedings before the board by telephone.
Although the claimant appealed from the November 12, 2013 Finding and Dismissal of Commissioner Dilzer the papers submitted in furtherance of the prosecution of his appeal failed to identify the legal issues with any degree of specificity. The only issue raised by the claimant with any specificity relates to the June 27, 2013 Finding and Award. In his Finding the trial Commissioner determined that the weekly compensation rate for the claimant was $418.44.
In proceedings before Commissioner Dilzer the claimant argued that his compensation rate was incorrectly calculated and rather than the $418.44 determined by the commissioner, the compensation rate should have been set as $538.89. Commissioner Dilzer utilized the compensation rate tables published by the Workers’ Compensation Commission. The claimant’s average weekly wage was $718.33 and his tax filing status was single with one exemption. The trier cited § 31-310(b)4 C.G.S. and concluded that the average weekly wage and compensation rate determination was consistent with the law. We find no error.
In Commissioner Dilzer’s November 12, 2013 Finding and Dismissal he considered the claimant’s claim for; temporary total/partial disability (and if found eligible for what period) cost-of-living adjustments, and the alleged denial of medical benefits. The trier also considered the respondents claim of an overpayment, and their Form 36 filed February 13, 2013.
Following formal proceedings, the trial commissioner approved the Form 36 filed February 13, 2003 by the respondent. The trier found that the claimant failed to demonstrate that he was not at maximum medical improvement on that date, nor did the claimant carry his burden of persuasion as to his claims for total disability, temporary partial disability or entitlement to a COLA pursuant to § 31-310. Additionally the trial commissioner held that the respondents overpaid the claimant and that the respondents had not denied medical treatment to the claimant.
In a letter dated November 26, 2013 and filed December 2, 2013 the claimant appears to challenge the Commissioner Dilzer’s determination as to the claimant’s credibility. However, the claimant-appellant has not provided any analysis from which we can deduce the basis of his argument. Further on review of such matters our courts have held, “[T]he commissioner is the sole arbiter of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses.... Neither the review board nor this court has the power to retry facts....” Turrell v. Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Services, 144 Conn. App. 834, 841 (2013). We will not tamper with such credibility determinations unless we are firmly convinced that such determinations result from an abuse of the trier’s discretion. Id.
[I]t is the established policy of the Connecticut courts to be solicitous of [self-represented] litigants and when it does not interfere with the rights of other parties to construe the rules of practice liberally in favor of the [self-represented] party ... we are also aware that [a]lthough we allow [self-represented] litigants some latitude, the right of self-representation provides no attendant license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tonghini v. Tonghini, 152 Conn.App. 231, 240, 98 A.3d 93 (2014).
Darin v. Cais, 161 Conn. App. 475, 481 (2015). See also; Ostrowski v. Guida-Siebert Dairy Co., 5374 CRB-6-08-9 (April 28, 2010).
The only fully framed appellate issue raised by the claimant is that pertaining to the computation of the claimant’s compensation rate. That issue was discussed and considered herein and no error was found. Casting the filings of the claimant in the other appeals in the most favorable light, we understand that the claimant disagrees with the conclusions reached in Commissioner Dilzer’s November 12, 2013 Finding and Dismissal, and Commissioner Senich’s January 28, 2015 Finding and Decision but without any analysis we cannot divine a basis for legal error.
We therefore affirm the trial commissioners’ conclusions in the afore-mentioned appeals.
Commissioners Ernie R. Walker and Stephen M. Morelli concur.

References: § 31
 § 31
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.