5399 CRB-1-08-11 (2009). CLAROS v. KEYSTONE PIPELINE SERVICES.

• Court: Connecticut

Connecticut Workers Compensation 2009. 5399 CRB-1-08-11 (2009). CLAROS v. KEYSTONE PIPELINE SERVICES CASE NO. 5399 CRB-1-08-11COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 28, 2009EMILIO CLAROS CLAIMANT-APPELLANT v. KEYSTONE PIPELINE SERVICES EMPLOYER and TRAVELERS PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURER RESPONDENTS-APPELLEESAPPEARANCES: The claimant appeared pro se. The respondents were represented by Kathleen Ready Smith, Esq., Law Offices of Charles G. Walker, 300 Windsor Street, P.O. Box 2138, Hartford, CT 06145-2138. This Petition for Review from the October 31, 2008 Finding and Award/Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the First District was heard April 24, 2009 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners Randy L. Cohen and Christine L. Engel.OPINION JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN. The claimant in this matter appeals from the dismissal of his claim for benefits which were above and beyond the scope of a Voluntary Agreement received by the Commission. The trial commissioner concluded after hearing all the evidence that the Voluntary Agreement, which awarded the claimant a 10% permanent partial disability of his cervical spine, properly compensated the claimant for his compensable injuries. Since the trial commissioner failed to find any credible or persuasive evidence for other injuries caused by the compensable accident, we must affirm this decision in the absence of legal error. Finding no errors of law, we affirm the Finding and Award/Dismissal and herein dismiss this appeal.Prior to considering the specific facts in the Finding and Award/Dismissal we have an administrative issue to address. The respondents argue that pursuant to Practice Book § 85-1 this appeal should be dismissed for lack of diligence in pursuing this appeal. They assert prejudice in the manner this appeal has been pursued. Following the issuance of the trial commissioner's decision the claimant filed a Petition for Review but did not file a Motion to Correct. While he was represented by counsel at the formal hearing, he brought this appeal pro se. The claimant in this matter submitted a Reason of Appeal that consisted of one sentence expressing his disagreement with the trial commissioner's decision. He submitted a "brief" which was a one page statement dictated to an administrative staffer at this Board on the day it was...