Source: https://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/2010/5496crb2.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:29:42+00:00

Document:
The claimant was notified of the instant proceeding, but did not appear at oral argument.
The respondent-employer was represented by Donald Mitchell, Esq., Attorney at Law, 103 South Main Street, P.O. Box 98, Newtown, CT 06470.
The respondent Second Injury Fund was represented by Lisa Guttenberg-Weiss, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120.
This Petition for Review from the September 10, 2009 Finding & Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Fifth District, was heard November 19, 2010 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Jack R. Goldberg and Ernie R. Walker.
JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The instant matter was heard by the Compensation Review Board at oral argument held November 19, 2010. The matter was calendared for oral argument on the claimant’s appeal from a September 10, 2009 Finding & Dismissal of her claim against the respondents. For the following reasons this panel has determined this appeal must be dismissed pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1.
Counsel for the claimant-appellant commenced this appeal on September 16, 2009. Since that date counsel for the claimant-appellant was granted a Motion to Withdraw his appearance on the claimant’s behalf. Knapp v. Innovative Design Builders, 5496 CRB-7-09-9 (May 21, 2010). At that time this panel advised the claimant-appellant that she had an additional thirty days to file a Motion to Correct and Reasons for Appeal. The claimant-appellant, however, has continued with this appeal, but failed to submit any written documentation in support of the appeal. The claimant-appellant was properly noticed that the matter would be heard on our docket of November 19, 2010. The claimant-appellant did not appear for oral argument on that date.
The claimant-appellant has failed to submit a brief in support of this appeal or take any other affirmative action following the withdrawal of counsel. Therefore, pursuant to the precedent in Angol v. In Your Neighborhood Construction, 5125 CRB-1-06-8 (March 16, 2010); Lopez v. A. Anastasio Fence Company, 5101 CRB-4-06-6 (May 23, 2007); and Bernier v. American Ref-Fuel Company of Southeast Connecticut, 4876 CRB-2-04-10 (December 23, 2005), we must dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1.
Commissioners Jack R. Goldberg and Ernie R. Walker concur in this decision.

References: § 85
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 85