McLAIN v. CITY OF NEW LONDON/BD OF EDUC., NO. 5606 CRB-8-10-11 (7-19-2011)

BRADLEY McLAIN, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT v. CITY OF NEW LONDON/BOARD OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYER AND. CONNECTICUT INTERLOCAL RISK MANAGEMENT INSURER, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

CASE NO. 5606 CRB-8-10-11 CLAIM NO. 800168970, 200170144CONNECTICUT COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD CONNECTICUT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
JULY 19, 2011

This Petition for Review from the November 9, 2010 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Eighth Fourth District was heard June 24, 2011 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of Commissioners Scott A. Barton, Christine L. Engel and Clifton E. Thompson.

The claimant did not attend oral argument.

The respondents were represented by Jennifer A. Hock, Esq., McGann, Bartlett Brown, LLC, 111 Founders Plaza, Suite 1201, East Hartford, CT 06108.

Page 2

OPINION
SCOTT A. BARTON, COMMISSIONER.

The claimant filed a Petition for Review from the November 9, 2010 Finding and Dismissal of the commissioner acting for the Eighth District. In proceedings before the trial commissioner, the claimant sought benefits for an injury alleged to have occurred February 4, 1994 while in the employ of the respondent. The claimant also claimed benefits for an injury alleged to have occurred while the claimant was attending a hearing on or about January 26, 2009.

The claimant was employed by the respondent from April, 1988 until some time in 2007.[1] The claimant argues that as a result of an injury alleged to have occurred February 4, 1994 he hurt his lower back. In proceedings before the trial commissioner, the claimant proffered a first report of injury dated February 4, 1994. Finding, ¶ 3. The medical reports submitted by the claimant related to a November 1, 1994 date of injury. See Finding, ¶ 6. A Voluntary Agreement referencing the November 1, 1994 injury was approved June 19, 1998.

On May 4, 2010 the claimant filed a Form 30C alleging an injury to his lumbar spine from a February 4, 1994 incident. The trial commissioner dismissed the claim alleged to relate to a February 4, 1994 incident for the following reasons; pursuant to § 31-294c(a) the claimant’s filing of his written notice of claim was untimely, the respondents did not provide medical care relating to this alleged date of injury, and the

Page 3

claimant did not provide any medical evidence from a time proximate to the alleged date of injury.

On April 30, 2010 the claimant also filed a Form 30C. That written notice of claim sought benefits for an injury to his pancreas/prostate as a result of attending a formal hearing on January 26, 2009.[2] The claimant alleged that prolonged sitting at the January 26, 2009 formal hearing caused him to suffer a swollen prostate. However, the claimant did not provide any competent medical evidence to support this claim relating the claimant’s prostate complaints to the January 26, 2009 formal hearing was that of the claimant. The trial commissioner was not persuaded by the claimant’s testimony and speculation as to the alleged physical effect of attending the January 26, 2009 formal hearing. Thus, the claim was dismissed.

Thereafter, on November 10, 2010, the claimant filed a Petition for Review.[3] The only other document filed by the appellant in the prosecution of this appeal is a letter dated March 8, 2011 espousing a number of editorial comments, none of which informed the board of the issues on appeal.[4] The matter was scheduled for oral argument before the Compensation Review Board on June 24, 2011 and in the notice of that hearing the claimant was informed that the board would consider whether the claimant failed to prosecute its appeal with diligence. Practice Book § 85-1.

Page 4

Neither the claimant nor his representative attended the June 24, 2011 Compensation Review Board hearing. The claimant did not file Reasons of Appeal, a Motion to Correct or an appellate brief. We will not speculate as to the legal basis of the appellant’s appeal. Gioia v. United ParcelService, 5488 CRB-3-09-8 (August 9, 2010); Reels v. Economy Gutters, 5511 CRB-2-09-11 (July 20, 2010); Ostrowski v. Guida-Siebert Dairy Co., 5374 CRB-6-08-9 (April 28, 2010).

We therefore dismiss this appeal from the November 9, 2010 Finding and Dismissal of the commissioner acting for the Eighth District.

Commissioners Christine L. Engel and Clifton E. Thompson concur.

[1] The appellant and his claims for benefits while in the employ of the respondent were the subject of this board’s opinion in McLain v. NewLondon Board of Education, 5512 CRB-2-09-11 (November 9, 2010), appeal dismissed, A.C. Docket No. 32893 (March 17, 2011). In McLain, id., the claimant claimed benefits for injuries alleged to have occurred over the course of multiple dates. That opinion identifies dates of alleged incidents and alleged injuries which were either accepted, dismissed or determined to have arisen out of and in the course of employment. Additionally, the Compensation Review Board considered the claimant’s appeal in McLain v. New London Board of Education, 5575 CRB 2-10-7 (May 13, 2011) (claimant sought benefits pursuant to § 31-284b.)

[2] The claimant’s Form 30C filed April 30, 2010 identifies the injured body part as “pancreas.” Appended to that Form 30C was a written statement alleging that the claimant suffered an enlarged prostate as a result of attending the January 26, 2009 hearing.

[3] We note that the claimant was unrepresented in the proceedings below and in these appellate proceedings. At all times in his pro se representation the claimant was assisted by his spouse.

[4] Upon receipt of the March 8, 2011 letter, the Compensation Review Board sent a letter to the claimant stating that the claimant’s letter was being interpreted as the claimant’s waiver of the right to present oral argument before the Compensation Review Board. The claimant was also advised that if opposing counsel chose to exercise her right to attend the June 24, 2011 hearing before the Compensation Review Board, she would be permitted to present oral argument.

Page 1