CASE NO. 1600 CRB-1-92-12
COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DECEMBER 27, 1994
CITY OF HARTFORD
The claimant was represented by Otto P. Witt, Esq., Witt & Associates, 185 Silas Deane Highway, Wethersfield, CT 06109 and Ronald E. Lasky, Esq., Lasky & Dunn, 47 Corrina Lane, Salem, CT 06420.
The respondents were represented by Anne Kelly Zovas, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton, & Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Blvd., Glastonbury, CT 06033-4412.
This Petition for Review from the December 4, 1992 Finding of Facts and Award of the Commissioner acting for the First District was heard January 14, 1994 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of Commissioners John A. Arcudi, George A. Waldron and Nancy A. Brouillet.
JOHN A. ARCUDI, COMMISSIONER. Claimant is appealing the First District December 4, 1992 denial of her claim. The commissioner dismissed the claim for an anxiety disorder disability and found claimant had not sustained her burden of proof that she suffered a compensable work injury.
After the December 4, 1992 dismissal of the claim, claimant filed an appeal received in the First District December 11. At the same time claimant’s counsel wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Commission protesting the length of time that had been taken in deciding the case, alleging the decision was rendered after the 120 days permitted by Sec. 31-300 C.G.S. The letter was received December 15.
Reasons for Appeal were filed December 23, 1992, twelve days after the appeal. Administrative Regulation Sec. 31-301-2 requires they be filed within ten days after the appeal. Claimant then filed a Motion to Correct December 28. Administrative Regulation Sec. 31-301-4 requires motions to correct must be filed within two weeks after the finding of the commissioner.
Respondent filed an “Objection to Motion to Correct” December 31 on the basis of its untimeliness since it was filed on the fourteenth day, four days late. The commissioner granted the objection.
In the proceedings before this tribunal, respondents seek to dismiss the appeal because Reasons of Appeal were filed late. Practice Book Sec. 4056 provides that a Motion to Dismiss based on a failure to file papers on time, must itself be filed within ten days after the appeal or within ten days after the defect occurs. See Sager v. GAB Business Services, Inc., 11 Conn. App. 693 (1987); Sinkoski v. Continental Auto, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 243, 1398 CRB-8-92-3 (1993).
As claimant’s Reasons of Appeal were filed late and as the respondent’s Motion to Dismiss was timely filed, the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
Commissioners George A. Waldron and Nancy A. Brouillet concur.