CHISHAM v. CULBRO TOBACCO, 909 CRD-1-89-8 (2-1-91)

GARY CHISHAM, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT vs. CULBRO TOBACCO, EMPLOYER and LIBERTY MUTUAL INS. CO., INSURER, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

CASE NO. 909 CRD-1-89-8Workers’ Compensation Commission
FEBRUARY 1, 1991

The claimant was represented by Susan Price-Livingston, Esq., and Jonathan Gould, Esq., both of Kestell, Pogue, Gould, Livingston, Adler Pulda.

The respondents were represented by Debra S. Dee, Esq., Law Offices of Rosenbaum Brennan.

This Petition for Review from the August 18, 1989 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner At Large acting for the First District was heard June 29, 1990 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners James Metro and Angelo dos Santos.

OPINION

JOHN ARCUDI, CHAIRMAN.

Claimant appeals the Finding and Dismissal of claim below. The only issue is whether the matter should be remanded for a new hearing because the decision below was not issued within the 120 days period provided in Sec. 31-300 C.G.S.[1]

Dispositive of this issue is Stevens v. City of Hartford, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 134, 831 CRD-1-89-2 (1990). While counsel in this instance cites different legal authority in support of its position we are satisfied that Stevens controls.

We, therefore, dismiss claimant’s appeal.

Commissioner’s James Metro and Angelo dos Santos concur.

[1] For the record we note that the claimant filed its original Reasons of Appeal August 28, 1989 and later filed Amended Reasons of Appeal April 16, 1990. The Amended Reasons of Appeal provided the above issue as its basis for appeal and withdrew all other reasons of appeal previously filed. The respondents have filed a Motion to Dismiss Claimant-Appellant’s Amended Reasons of Appeal. Because of the ultimate conclusion reached we need not rule on respondent’s motion.