CASE NO. 1278 CRD-7-91-8Workers’ Compensation Commission
NOVEMBER 12, 1992

The claimant was represented at the trial level and initially on appeal by Howard Evan Ignal, Esq., and Laurence S. Scher, Esq., Ignal Vogel, P.C. The claimant was pro se on appeal and did not appear at oral argument.

The respondents were represented by Robert S. Cullen, Esq.

This Petition for Review from the July 30, 1991 Finding and Order of the Commissioner at Large acting for the Seventh District was heard March 13, 1992 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the then Commission Chairman, John Arcudi and Commissioners Frank Verrilli and Donald H. Doyle.



Claimant has pursued a pro se appeal from the order approving discontinuance of benefits. At the trial level he had been represented by counsel, but once the original appeal document was filed, he represented himself. He filed no Reasons of Appeal, no Motion to Correct and no brief as such. He did not appear on March 13, 1992 when oral argument was scheduled but did write a letter received March 16, 1992. The letter asserted his dire personal circumstances and his inability to prepare for the scheduled appeal hearing. The Chairman then wrote the claimant allowing additional time to file a brief and instructing him to file that brief promptly. To date no brief has been received.

We assume that the reason for the appeal was to contest the commissioner’s conclusion that claimant was no longer totally disabled after February 2, 1989. Claimant suffered a compensable back injury August 2, 1987 while in the employ of the respondent Midwest Drivers Corporation. He was then paid Sec. 31-307 total disability benefits until February 2, 1989.

The evidence before the trier was in conflict. Medical reports from Dr. Frank Serena, and Dr. Alan Weisel, indicated claimant continued to be totally disabled after February 2, 1989. See paragraphs 3-5. However, Dr. Arthur Brovender, M.D. concluded he was no longer totally disabled on that date. See paragraphs 7-12. Also there was evidence presented from surveillance by Robert Pesce, a private investigator, recorded in video tapes and photographs, as well as a written report from the same investigator describing claimant’s physical activities at various times and places. See paragraph 14.

On appeal we do not consider matters de novo. We will not disturb a trier’s conclusions where they are dependent on the weight and credibility to be accorded the evidence before him. Rivera v. Guida’s Dairy, 167 Conn. 524 (1975). We are limited to determining whether the conclusions were contrary to law, without evidence or based on unreasonable or impermissible factual inferences. Fair v. People’s Savings Bank, 207 Conn. 535
(1988). There was evidence here to support the conclusions reached and they violated no other requirements which would justify appellate interference. Bailey v. Mitchell, 113 Conn. 721

We affirm the July 30, 1991 Finding and Order and dismiss the claimant’s appeal.

Commissioners Frank Verrilli and Donald H. Doyle concur.