5374 CRB-6-08-9 (2010). Ostrowski v. Guida-Siebert Dairy Company.

• Court: Connecticut

Connecticut Workers Compensation 2010. 5374 CRB-6-08-9 (2010). Ostrowski v. Guida-Siebert Dairy Company CASE NO. 5374 CRB-6-08-9COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSIONAPRIL 28, 2010ROMAN OSTROWSKI CLAIMANT-APPELLANT v. GUIDA-SIEBERT DAIRY COMPANY EMPLOYER and HARTFORD ITT INSURANCE GROUP INSURER RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES APPEARANCES: The claimant was not represented and did not appear at oral argument. The respondent employer was represented by Richard D. O'Connor, Esq., Siegel, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Beck, P.C., 150 Trumbull Street, Hartford, CT 06103-2406. The respondent insurer was represented by Larry McLoughlin, Esq., Law Offices of David J. Mathis, 55 Farmington Avenue, Suite 500, Hartford, CT 06105. This Petition for Review from the August 20, 2008 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Sixth District was heard February 26, 2010 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Nancy E. Salerno and Jack R. Goldberg. OPINIONJOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has appealed from the August 20, 2008 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Sixth District.(fn1) In his August 20, 2008 decision, the trial commissioner found that the claimant failed to meet his prima facie burden in his claim for benefits alleged to relate to a work related injury occurring June 26, 2000 while in the employ of the respondent, Guida's Dairy. The trial commissioner found that the claimant failed to prosecute his claim with due diligence and that the claimant failed to establish a prima facie case. The trier noted that the claimant failed to provide any medical evidence or documentation in support of his claim. In his findings the trial commissioner found that a number of hearings were held in this matter and that the claimant was informed of his right to representation by an attorney as well as a right to have an interpreter present. The trier also found that the claimant was informed that in order to meet the burden of establishing a prima facie case he needed to submit medical evidence and documentation. On June 18, 2008 a pre-formal hearing was held and the claimant did not appear. Thereafter, a formal hearing was held August 20, 2008 for which the claimant was duly noticed. The claimant also failed to appear at...