Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** ANGELO PIETRAROIA v. NORTHEAST UTILITIES ET AL. (SC 16278)
McDonald, C. J., and Borden, Norcott, Palmer and Sullivan, Js. Argued May 30--officially released August 8, 2000 Counsel

Amy M. Stone, with whom was Carolyn P. Kelly, for the appellant (plaintiff). Robert J. Enright, with whom were Douglas L. Drayton, Theodore M. Pappas and Nancy S. Rosenbaum, for the appellee (named defendant).
Opinion

BORDEN, J. The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the workers' compensation commissioner (commissioner) abused his discretion in dismissing with prejudice the claim of the plaintiff, Angelo Pietraroia, a resident of Australia, because he failed to appear for the formal hearing before the commissioner in Connecticut. The plaintiff appeals from the decision of the compensation review board (board)1 affirming the decision of the commissioner dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff contends that: (1) the commissioner

had no power to dismiss the claim without adjudicating the case on the merits; and (2) in the alternative, the commissioner abused his discretion in dismissing the claim.2 We conclude that: (1) the commissioner had the power to dismiss the claim; but (2) he abused his discretion in doing so. Accordingly, we reverse the board's decision. The plaintiff, on August 8, 1994, through his Connecticut attorney, filed a claim for workers' compensation against his former employer, the defendant Northeast Utilities,3 alleging that, while employed by the defendant from 1956 through 1972, he suffered ``[p]ulmonary impairment caused by exposure to lung irritants . . . .''4 The notice of claim indicated that the plaintiff lived in Australia. The defendant filed a timely notice of contest of liability. Ultimately, on June 5, 1998, the commissioner granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim with prejudice. The plaintiff appealed from that decision to the board, which affirmed the decision. This appeal followed. Certain facts and the procedural history are undisputed. Following the filing of the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's notice of contest, the matter was scheduled for a formal hearing on January 28, 1997. On January 2, 1997, however, the plaintiff moved for permission to present his testimony electronically. In support thereof, the plaintiff represented that he was sixty-four years old, he had lived in Australia since 1972, and he resided in McLaren Flat, South Australia, which is near the city of Adelaide. He also represented that he was unable to testify in person because of illness, as indicated in a medical report attached to the motion.5 He represented further that he ``could . . . present his case by way of deposition,'' which he acknowledged would, however, ``be an inconvenience for both [the plaintiff] and [the defendant] in that counsel for each party would either have to travel to Australia at considerable cost or procure Australian attorneys to conduct a deposition in Australia.'' The plaintiff submitted that ``another alternative would be to present his testimony telephonically before the Commissioner at a continued formal hearing scheduled for a time which would take into account the 14 1/2 hour time difference between Middletown, Connecticut and South Australia.'' He submitted that a telephone with speaker phone capabilities at the site of the hearing would be used, that the oath would be administered by an appropriate official provided in Practice Book

Download Pietraroia v. Northeast Utilities.pdf

Connecticut Law