EDUARDO BASURTO, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT/BONESKI TREATMENT CENTER, EMPLOYER and ALEXSIS, INC., SELF-INSURED ADMINISTRATOR, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

CASE NO. 3115 CRB-2-95-7Workers’ Compensation Commission
DECEMBER 24, 1996

The claimant was not represented at oral argument. Notice sent to C. George Kanabis, Esq., Kanabis Houle.

The respondent was represented by Lisa Weiss, Esq., Assistant Attorney General.

This Petition for Review from the July 3, 1995 Finding and Order of the Commissioner acting for the Second District was heard June 14, 1996 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners George A. Waldron and Robin L. Wilson.

DISMISSAL ORDER

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN.

The claimant has petitioned for review from the July 3, 1995 Finding and Order of the Commissioner acting for the Second District. In that decision, the commissioner noted that the claimant’s temporary total disability benefits were being sent directly to his attorney for deposit into an interest bearing escrow account, due to questions surrounding the claimant’s competency. The attorney subsequently sought to withdraw from representing the claimant. He did not disclose what money the claimant had already received or whether he had started the escrow account. The commissioner was also concerned that the claimant was still incapable of handling his own finances. She accordingly ordered the attorney to continue receiving the claimant’s checks for placement in an escrow account, and ordered him to provide an accounting of all benefits paid at an upcoming formal proceeding. An appeal was subsequently filed from that decision on behalf of both the claimant and his attorney.

The respondent has since filed a Motion to Dismiss the claimant’s appeal pursuant to Practice Book § 4184A, which authorizes a court to dismiss an appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence. Although the claimant did file an Objection to the commissioner’s order along with his appeal that provides some inkling as to his grounds for appeal, no formal Reasons for Appeal were filed as required by Admin. Reg. § 31-301-2. Moreover, the claimant did not file a brief in accordance with the briefing schedule of this board, and neither he nor his attorney appeared at oral argument. As this board has received nothing from the appellant since the appeal was filed, we grant the respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. See Nichols v.United Technologies Corp./Sikorsky Aircraft, 2239 CRB-4-94-12
(decided June 21, 1996); Esquillin v. Pinto Lavado Enterprises,13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 148, 1914 CRB-2-93-12 (Feb. 1, 1995).

Commissioners George A. Waldron and Robin L. Wilson concur.