5362 CRB-3-08-7 (2009). DiBlase v. Logistec Connecticut, Inc.

• Court: Connecticut

Connecticut Workers Compensation 2009. 5362 CRB-3-08-7 (2009). DiBlase v. Logistec Connecticut, Inc CASE NO. 5362 CRB-3-08-7COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION APRIL 28, 2009ANTHONY DIBLASE CLAIMANT-APPELLANT v. LOGISTEC CONNECTICUT, INC. EMPLOYER and LAMORTE BURNS & COMPANY RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES APPEARANCES: The claimant was represented by David A. Kelly, Esq., Montstream & May, LLP, 655 Winding Brook Drive, P.O. Box 1087, Glastonbury, CT 06033-6087. The respondents were represented by Neil J. Ambrose, Esq., Letizia, Ambrose & Falls, P.C., One Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510. This Petition for Review from the June 19, 2008 Finding and Denial of the Commissioner acting for the Third District was heard 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. OPINIONJOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN.The claimant has taken this appeal from the June 19, 2008 Finding and Denial of the Commissioner acting for the Third District. In his ruling the trial commissioner denied the claimant-appellant's request for attorney's fees pursuant to § 31-300 on the basis of unreasonable contest and unreasonable delay.This is not this tribunal's first opportunity to consider matters between these two parties. Our first appellate consideration resulted in our opinion in DiBlase v. Logistec of CT., Inc., 4896 CRB-4-04-12 (January 19, 2006) [hereafter DiBlase I]. In DiBlase I we were asked to consider whether a trial commissioner's holding that injuries sustained by a stevedore, while working in the hull of a ship on navigable waters were under the jurisdiction of the federal Longshore Harbor Workers' Compensation Act and were injuries over which the Connecticut Workers' Compensation Act had no subject matter jurisdiction. The trial commissioner concluded Connecticut was without such subject matter jurisdiction and thus, dismissed the claimant's claim under Connecticut law. The claimant filed an appeal with this board and the decision of the trial commissioner as to the lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trier's conclusion was affirmed on the basis of our Supreme Court's holding in Leszczymski v. Andrew Radel Oyster Co., 102 Conn. 511, 527-28, 129 A. 539 (1925). In Leszczymski, our court held that the...