Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

VALERIE MENARD, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT v. TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR, EMPLOYERand THE HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP, INSURER, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

OPINION

JOHN A. ARCUDI, COMMISSIONER.

Claimant's pro se appeal attempts to raise some issues on matters occurring after the hearing below, matters not included in the evidentiary hearing before the trier. We cannot consider those. Essentially, claimant argues the commissioner should have found she suffered a compensable back injury November 13, 1989 and further that testimony given by her co-workers in the March 10, 1992 hearing was not credible.

The appeal mounts a wholesale attack on the commissioner's findings and ultimate legal conclusion. But no Motion to Correct was filed. Therefore, the trier's findings must stand. Mack v. Blake Drug Co., 152 Conn. 523 (1965); Lynch v. Red Star Express, 10 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 75, 1133 CRD-3-90-11 (1992); McCarthy v. 10 Star Corporation, 10 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 64, 1134 CRD-2-90-11 (1992).

Moreover, claimant did not file a transcript of evidence with her appeal. We therefore cannot ascertain on what evidence she relies for her legal claims. See Practice Book Sec. 4061. See also, Lilley v. Larry's Sales Repair, 11 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 188, 190 n. 3, 1408 CRB-2-92-4 (1993). Additionally, claimant also failed to file a brief.

We, therefore, affirm the First District's Finding and Dismissal of March 20, 1992.

Commissioners Donald H. Doyle, Jr. and Roberta S. D'Oyen concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MENARD v. TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
(Feb 1, 1994)