State of Connecticut Workers' Compensation Commission, John A. Mastropietro, Chairman
Home News RSS News QUICK Find Index Search E-Mail
General Information Glossary Law CRB Opinions Workers' Compensation Commission Downloadable Forms and Publications Links

Schena v. State of Connecticut/Connecticut Correctional Institute

CASE NO. 1530 CRB-8-92-10

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

FEBRUARY 3, 1994

RICHARD SCHEMA

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT/CONNECTICUT CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

EMPLOYER

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented by Brian W. Frucker, Esq., Asselin & Associates, One Courthouse Square, Willimantic, CT 06226.

The respondent was represented by J. Sarah Posner, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120.

This Petition for Review from the September 23, 1992 Ruling on Motion to Preclude of the Commissioner for the Second District was heard March 26, 1993 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse Frankl and Commissioners George A. Waldron and Donald H. Doyle, Jr.

OPINION

JESSE FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant challenges the September 23, 1992 decision of the trial commissioner denying his Motion to Preclude. Although he asserts three grounds in support of his claim that the Motion to Preclude should have been granted, he has briefed only one of those grounds. Issues not briefed are deemed abandoned. Marshall v. UTC/Pratt & Whitney, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 204, 1317 CRD-1-91-10 (1993); Real v. Carducci d/b/a Carducci Builders, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 31, 32 n.1, 901 CRD-1-89-8 (1991). The issue properly presented for our review, then, is whether the respondent is precluded from contesting liability pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) Sec. 31-297(b) because the respondent failed to serve a copy of its disclaimer on the claimant within twenty days of the receipt of the notice of claim.1

In support of his claim, the claimant relies on our decision Vachon v. General Dynamics/Electric Boat Division, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 53, 1137 CRD-2-90-11 (1992). Our decision in Vachon, however, was reversed by the Appellate Court in Vachon v. General Dynamics Corporation, 29 Conn. App. 654 (1992), cert denied, 224 Conn. 927 (1993). The Appellate Court concluded: “To avoid preclusion, notice contesting liability must be filed within twenty days with the workers’ compensation commissioner. The employer is not required to send such notice to the employee within the twenty day time period.” Id., 659; see also Magram v. City of Middletown, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 167, 1348 CRD-8-91-11 (1993). Accordingly, the claimant’s argument to the contrary is without merit.

We, therefore, affirm the trial commissioner and deny the appeal.

Commissioners George A. Waldron and Donald H. Doyle, Jr. concur.

1 Even if we were to address the reasons of appeal which the claimant has not briefed, we would find them utterly lacking in merit. The respondent’s disclaimer was sufficiently precise under Tovish v. Gerber Electronics, 19 Conn. App. 273 (1989). See Hveem v. State of Connecticut, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 5, 897 CRD-5-89-7 (1991). Additionally, it is well-settled that a disclaimer is not ineffective simply because it is filed earlier than the employee’s notice of claim. See Dibenedetto v. State of Connecticut, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 1, 2, 3, 862 CRD-6-89-5 (1991) (collecting cases). BACK TO TEXT

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: February 2, 2016

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1994/1530crb.htm

Workers’ Compensation Commission Disclaimer, Privacy Policy and Website Accessibility

State of Connecticut Workers' Compensation Commission, John A. Mastropietro, Chairman
Home News RSS News QUICK Find Index Search E-Mail
General Information Glossary Law CRB Opinions Workers' Compensation Commission Downloadable Forms and Publications Links