Source: https://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/2014/5834crb.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:10:24+00:00

Document:
The claimant was represented by Charles K. Norris, Esq., Chinigo, Leone & Maruzo, LLP, 141 Broadway, PO Box 510, Norwich, CT 06360.
The respondents were represented by Melissa A. Murello, Esq., Montstream & May, LLP, 655 Winding Brook Drive, PO Box 1087, Glastonbury, CT 06033.
This Petition for Review from the April 3, 2013 Ruling on Motion to Transfer of the Commissioner acting for the Second District was heard September 27, 2013 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Charles F. Senich and Ernie R. Walker.
JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The respondent Town of West Hartford has appealed from a decision reached by the trial commissioner hearing this case that proceedings should move to the Second District office in Norwich from the Sixth District office in New Britain. The respondent argues that this action is in derogation of a 1923 court decision regarding the transfer of hearings between districts. We note that this is an interlocutory appeal, and the substantive issues before the trial commissioner have yet to be addressed. Therefore, for the reasons stated in Quinones v. RW Thompson Company, Inc., 5792 CRB-1-12-10 (January 16, 2014) and Kuba v. Michael’s Landscaping & Lawn Service, 4266 CRB-4-00-7 (August 29, 2001), we deem this matter unripe for appellate consideration. We remand this matter to the trial commissioner for further proceedings.
The following facts are relevant to our consideration. On August 18, 2011 the late Commissioner Clifton E. Thompson responded to an objection filed by counsel for the respondent and an inquiry as to the reasons why this claim was being transferred to the Second District. Commissioner Thompson advised that the claimant had requested the transfer as he lived in Hebron and that in accordance with § 31-297 C.G.S.1 hearings were to occur in the town where the claimant resides, or if that was not possible, in a convenient place as prescribed by the commissioner. On March 29, 2013 the respondent restated their objection to the file being assigned to the Second District. On April 3, 2013 Commissioner David Schoolcraft heard oral argument on the respondent’s objection and ruled against it. The respondent filed a Motion for Articulation dated April 17, 2013 seeking to elicit Commissioner Schoolcraft’s rationale for denial of their objection. Commissioner Schoolcraft issued an Articulation on April 29, 2013 explaining his legal basis for denying the respondent’s objection. The present appeal ensued.
[u]nless the immediate actualization of an interlocutory ruling may result in some form of irreparable harm, such as the disclosure of sensitive and confidential information to opposing counsel; see Vetre v. State/Dept. of Children and Youth Services, 3948 CRB-6-98-12 (February 14, 2000); this board discourages parties from filing appeals before the commissioner has had a chance to rule on the merits of a case.
Citing Richardson v. Bic Corporation, 4953 CRB-3-05-6 (September 7, 2006).
We cannot identify the irreversible harm that would occur to the respondent were this case to go forward and the trial commissioner reach a decision on the merits. The respondent could present for our consideration any and all errors made by the trial commissioner in the underlying proceeding if and when they appealed a final decision. In Gorelick v. Montanaro, 94 Conn. App. 14 (2006) the Appellate Court opined that an appeal should not be considered if “we observe no risk of loss of any cognizable right if appellate review is delayed until final judgments enter.” Id., 33.
We are of the opinion the present dispute is unripe for appellate adjudication. We therefore remand this case to the trial commissioner for further proceedings.

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