Source: https://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1995/1854crb.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:10:28+00:00

Document:
Respondents-appellees were represented by David A. Kelly, Esq. and Robert Montstream, Esq., Montstream & May, 655 Winding Brook Drive, P.O. Box 1087, Glastonbury, CT 06033.
The Second Injury Fund was represented by Brewster Blackall, Esq. and Yinxia Long, Esq., Assistant Attorneys General, 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120.
This Petition for Review from the September 14, 1993 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the First District was heard June 24, 1994 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of Commissioners Angelo L. dos Santos, Nancy A. Brouillet and Michael S. Miles.
ANGELO L. dos SANTOS, COMMISSIONER. The Second Injury Fund timely petitioned for review from the First District Commissioner’s September 14, 1993 Finding and Award. The Second Injury Fund has failed to file its reasons for appeal, a brief, or a motion to correct. Pursuant to Administrative Regulations § 31-301-2, an appellant must file reasons of appeal within ten days after the filing of the appeal petition. The last document filed by the Fund was a motion for extension of time to file reasons of appeal with the Compensation Review Board. That motion was granted on October 4, 1993, giving the Fund three weeks after receipt of the transcript to file its reasons of appeal. Respondent employer stated in his brief that the transcript was delivered to all parties on or about February 28, 1994. The Second Injury Fund did not dispute it. At the time of oral argument on June 24, 1994, approximately four months had transpired since receipt of the transcripts, without the Fund having filed its reasons of appeal.
The employer moved for dismissal due to the Second Injury Fund’s failure to pursue its appeal. At oral argument, the employer requested a continuance. The Compensation Review Board has broad discretion in choosing to grant or deny continuances. See Jackson v. Commissioner of Correction, 227 Conn. 124, 145 (1993) (Berdon, J., dissenting). The panel decided to go forward with the proceedings.
As the Second Injury Fund has neglected to actively pursue its appeal, we must dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4055. See Burke v. Abacus Transfer & Storage, 1782 CRB-3-93-7 (decided November 3, 1994); Perkins v. Rudy Fogg & Son, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 241, 1697 CRB-2-93-4 (March 28, 1994); Divita v. Thames Valley Steel, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 50, 1541 CRB-2-92-10 (1994); Hargatai v. Copy Data, Inc., 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 106, 107, 1475 CRB-4-92-7 (1993); Jones v. Middletown Mfg., 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 56, 57, 1296 CRD-8-91-9 (1993).

References: § 31
 v. 
 § 4055
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.