5360 CRB-7-08-7 (2009). Cuadrado v. Stop & Shop Companies, Inc.
Court | Connecticut |
Connecticut Workers Compensation
2009.
5360 CRB-7-08-7 (2009).
Cuadrado v. Stop & Shop Companies, Inc
CASE NO. 5360
CRB-7-08-7COMPENSATION REVIEW
BOARD
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONJULY 2, 2009HAYSEBELL CUADRADO CLAIMANT-APPELLANT
v. STOP & SHOP COMPANIES, INC. EMPLOYER and MAC RISK MANAGEMENT
ADMINISTRATOR/INSURER RESPONDENTS-APPELLEESAPPEARANCES:The claimant appeared pro se. At the
trial level, the claimant was represented by Steven H. Cousins, Esq., 324 Elm
Street, Suite 2018, Monroe, CT 06468. The respondents were represented by
Clayton J. Quinn, Esq., The Quinn Law Firm, LLC, 204 South Broad Street,
Milford, CT 06460. This Petition for Review from the June 12, 2008 Finding and
Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Seventh District was heard on
January 23, 2009 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the
Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Peter C. Mlynarczyk
and Randy L. Cohen.OPINION JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN.
The claimant has petitioned for review from the June 12, 2008 Finding and
Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Seventh District. We find no
error, and affirm the decision of the trial commissioner.The following factual findings are pertinent to our review. The
claimant, who began working for the respondent employer in May of 2000, was
employed as a food service manager in the seafood/meat department on March 17,
2006. The claimant testified that while at work on that date, as she was
picking up a box of bacon which weighed approximately thirty (30) pounds, she
"felt something happen to her back, with a bit of pain down her left leg."
Findings, ¶ 5. On March 18, 2006, the claimant reported feeling
"excruciating" pain and went to the emergency room at Bridgeport Hospital.
Findings, ¶ 7. The claimant testified that she gave a medical history at
Bridgeport Hospital regarding her back injury. The Bridgeport Hospital medical
records state, inter alia, that the claimant had experienced
"five days of increasing pain, strong left buttock/low back pain radiating down
left leg to knee and into groin" and that her "[p]ain started after work, after
a day of heavy lifting." Claimant's Exhibit A.
The claimant subsequently consulted Scott Waller, M.D., an
orthopedic surgeon, for follow-up treatment. In his report of March 20, 2006,
Dr. Waller indicated the claimant had reported "the onset of back pain symptoms
three days prior to her ER visit" and "[t]here is no known history or change in
activity pattern." Claimant's Exhibit E. Dr. Waller referred the claimant to
Patrick P. Mastroianni, M.D., a neurosurgeon, who performed an L4-5 laminectomy
on the claimant. In his report dated April 11, 2007, Dr. Mastroianni opined
that the injury of March 17, 2006 "was indeed a substantial factor in producing
the disc pathology at the L4-5 level which ultimately required surgical
correction." Claimant's Exhibit B. The doctor also stated that although the
claimant had "minor lumbar symptomology preceding the injury, she had no
specific prior injury and the level of severity was nothing like what she
experienced after the March 17, 2006 injury." Id.
Following a formal hearing held in this matter on November 6,
2007 at which both parties were represented by counsel, the trial commissioner
determined the claimant did not sustain a back injury in the lifting incident
of March 17, 2006. The trial commissioner, having found neither the claimant's
testimony nor Dr. Mastroianni's opinion credible or persuasive, dismissed the
claim.
The claimant filed a timely Petition for Review on July 2, 2008
and subsequently filed a document entitled "Appeal from Findings and Dismissal
dated July 12, 2008." On December 2, 2008, the respondents filed a "Motion to
Preclude"(fn1) objecting to the materials submitted by the claimant on July 12,
2008 on the basis that the document was an "attempt to submit additional
evidence, facts and/or testimony that was not properly submitted at trial."
Respondents' Motion to Preclude, p. 1. The respondents also filed a Motion to
Dismiss based upon the claimant's failure to either file a brief in compliance
with this board's briefing schedule or a request for an extension of time in
which to do so.(fn2) On December 16, 2008, the claimant filed a second document
entitled, "Response to & Object to Motion to Preclude, Motion to Dismiss,
& Respondents Brief, Dated 12/2/2008, Motion to Dismiss, Dated 12/2/2008,
and Respondents Brief Dated 12/8/2008." The claimant appeared pro
se at oral argument.
We begin with a discussion of the procedural irregularities
attendant upon this claim. As previously noted herein, the claimant neglected
to file Reasons of Appeal or a brief or request an extension of time for filing
a brief. We have previously observed that "[i]t is especially important that
the appealing party provide a brief, so that this board and the other parties
understand the grounds for the appeal." Walter v. Bridgeport, 5092 CRB-4-06-5
(May 16, 2007). Absent a brief, "this board has discretion to dismiss an appeal
for failure to prosecute with due diligence." Id., citing Reaves v. Brownstone
Construction, 3930 CRB-4-98-11 (November 30, 1999). However, it is also
well-settled that "it is the policy of Connecticut courts and this board to
accommodate pro se claimants as much as possible by liberally construing
procedural rules where doing so does not interfere with the rights of other
parties." Walter, supra, citing Ferrin v. Glen Orne Leasing/Webster Trucking,
4802 CRB-8-04-4 (March 28, 2005). See also Vanguard Engineering, Inc. v.
Anderson, 83 Conn. App. 62, 65 (2004).
In the instant matter, while the claimant did not provide a
brief, she did provide two documents which upon review seem to at least
tangentially address her...
To continue reading
Request your trial