Opinion
CASE NO. 1133 CRD-3-90-11
MARCH 9, 1992
The claimant was represented at the trial level by Norma S. Johnson, Esq., Cousins and Johnson.
The claimant appeared pro se on the appeal.
The respondents were represented by Scott Wilson Williams, Esq., Maher and Williams.
This Petition for Review from the November 6, 1990 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner for the Third District was heard September 27, 1991 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi and Commissioners George Waldron and Angelo dos Santos.
OPINION
This pro se appeal by claimant contests the dismissal of his claim. Claimant was represented by counsel in those prior proceedings but has pursued the appeal on his own. The trial Commissioner denied claims for permanent partial disability the lumbar spine, for temporary total disability benefits and Sec. 31-308a partial disability benefits.
The claimant seeks to set aside the trial Commissioner's decision because the Finding and Dismissal was rendered more than 120 days after the date of the last formal hearing contrary to Sec. 31-300 C.G.S.
Sec 31-300 provides: As soon as may be after the conclusion of any hearing, but no later than one hundred twenty days after such conclusion, the commissioner shall send to each party a written copy of his award.
Before a commissioner's judgment may be set aside due to the failure to satisfy Sec. 31-300 time requirements, parties requesting such action must demonstrate how they were prejudiced by the delay in rendering the judgment. Chisham v. Culbro Tobacco, 9 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 36, 909 CRD-1-89-8 (1991); Stevens v. City of Hartford, 8 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 134, 831 CRD-1-89-2 (1990).
Our policy is to grant wider procedural latitude to a pro se appellant, but here there is no claim or any evidence that the delay prejudiced the claimant. Claimant does argue that in the trial Commissioner's "rush to judgment" certain medical; reports may have been overlooked. However, each of the reports cited by the claimant was included as part of the record and was either referred to generally or specifically in the trial Commissioner's Finding and Dismissal.
See Claimant's Exhibit F (includes reports of Dr. Vincent F. Sica, M.D.) and reports of Dr. Michael E. Opalak, M.D. Respondent's Exhibits 7 and 8.2
Further, the claimant has not filed a Motion to Correct and thus the factual findings of the trial Commissioner must stand. Mack v. Blake Drug Company, 152 Conn. 523 (1965).
We therefore affirm the November 6, 1990 Finding and Dismissal and dismiss the appeal.
Commissioners George Waldron and Angelo dos Santos concur.