Opinion
CASE NO. 828-CRD-1-89-2
JUNE 19, 1990
The claimant was represented at the trial level by Clinton Wright, Esq., who later withdrew and subsequently by Wesley Spears, Esq. Claimant was represented pro se at the appellate level. Neither the claimant nor Atty. Spears personally appeared before the Compensation Review Division for oral argument.
The respondents were represented by James L. Pomeranz, Esq., and Richard Stabnick, Esq. both of Pomeranz, Drayton Stabnick.
This Petition for Review from the February 3, 1989 Approval of Stipulation and Denial of Claimant's Motion to Re-Open of the Commissioner at Large acting for the First District was heard February 23, 1990 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Frank Verrilli and George Waldron.
OPINION
A compensable injury November 21, 1979 caused partial amputation of claimant's left arm. He received payment for indemnity and medical expenses. For the remaining liability under the statute he entered into a stipulated agreement with the respondents. As a result he was to receive $100,000.00 on approval of the stipulation and $1,000.00 a month for 14 years, a total of $268,000.00. Before approving the stipulated agreement the commissioner in a recorded formal hearing December 19, 1988 explained the details of the settlement to claimant. He also explained that the two lawyers who had represented claimant would each receive a $10,000.00 fee out of the sum to be paid by respondents. The claimant responded, "I will accept the settlement, but I will appeal the attorney's award." Thereafter the commissioner issued his ruling February 3, 1989 approving the settlement.
On February 15, 1989 the claimant appearing pro se filed this Petition for Review. This is an untimely filing more that ten days after the ruling, and we are without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Sec. 31-301(a) C.G.S. See also, Famiglietti v. Dossert Corp., 804-CRD-5-88-12 (decided April 17, 1990); Rushton v. VIP Limousine, 756-CRD-7-88-8 (decided December 6, 1989); Johnston v. ARA Services, Inc., 7 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 19, 765-CRD-7-88-8 (1989).
Nonetheless, as claimant pursued the appeal pro se, we carefully examined the handwritten documents submitted. He seems to be seeking a reopening of the matter below only with respect to the attorney's fees granted. Our decision rejecting the appeal does not prohibit him from pursuing such a motion in the first district. In order to prevail he must satisfy the requirements of Sec. 31-315, C.G.S.
The appeal is dismissed.
Commissioners Frank Verrilli and George Waldron concur.