General Statutes 7521. It was within his power to do this. See Makris v. Chase Brass Copper Co., 136 Conn. 340, 345, 71 A.2d 77. In view of the remedial nature of unemployment compensation legislation and the apparent intent of the legislature, expressed in General Statutes, 7516, that a claimant's petition should not be dismissed because of his failure to comply with some technicality of procedure, we hold that the so-called petition for review constituted an appeal which was filed within the time allowed.

Although we admire the cogent manner in which claimant has presented argument in all his pro se efforts, we are unable to grant the relief he seeks. For him to have succeeded in this new 1983 claim, he needed to present evidence of a change in circumstances concerning his disability status. The burden of persuasion was on him to satisfy the trial Commissioner of this. Wysocki v. Bradley Hubbard Co., 113 Conn. 170 (1931), Henderson v. Mazzotta, 113 Conn. 747 (1931), Meadow v. Winchester Repeating Arms Co., 134 Conn. 269 (1948), Makris v. Chase Brass Copper Co., 136 Conn. 340 (1949). He failed to do this.