CASE NO. 2018 CRB-3-94-4
COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DECEMBER 5, 1995
STOP & SHOP COMPANIES, INC.
The claimant was represented by John J. D’Elia, Esq., Kennedy & Johnson, Long Wharf Maritime Center, 545 Long Wharf Drive, New Haven, CT 06511.
The respondent was represented by Andrew H. Sharp, Esq., Morrison, Mahoney & Miller, 100 Pearl St., Hartford, CT 06103.
This ruling regarding claimant’s Motion to Dismiss the Respondent’s Petition for Review from the March 28, 1994 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Third District was heard April 7, 1995 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Roberta Smith Tracy and Amado J. Vargas.
JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The respondent filed an untimely petition for review from the Third District Commissioner’s March 28, 1994 Finding and Award.
The respondent’s petition for review was filed on April 11, 1994, fourteen days after the trial commissioner’s Finding and Dismissal had been issued on March 28, 1994. The respondent’s petition for review was not filed within the time limit prescribed by § 31-301(a) C.G.S., which states that “[a]t any time within ten days after entry of an award by the commissioner . . . either party may appeal therefrom to the compensation review board by filing in the office of the commissioner . . . an appeal petition . . . .” (Emphasis added). We have consistently ruled that the appealing party must file its appeal within the prescribed time period in order for this board to have subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. Corona v. Uniroyal Chemical, Inc., 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 105, 987 CRD-5-90-3 (March 13, 1991) (dismissing appeal to this board filed on the eleventh day following trial commissioner’s decision); Famiglietti v. Dossert Corporation, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 65, 804 CRD-5-88-12 (April 17, 1990); Johnston v. ARA Services Inc., 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 19, 20, 765 CRD-7-88-8 (June 29, 1989).
The respondent contends that its appeal was filed timely on April 11, 1994 because there was a state holiday on April 1, 1994. We disagree. A state holiday would only extend the time period for filing an appeal where it occurred on the final day of the appeal period. See Stevens v. City of Hartford, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 134, 831 CRD-1-89-2 (Aug. 6, 1990) (citing Practice Book § 4010).
The respondent does not contend that it received the commissioner’s decision in an untimely manner, or that the trial commissioner’s decision was not mailed to the parties in a timely manner. In fact, the respondent states in its Objection to Motion to Dismiss filed on May 5, 1994 that it received the trial commissioner’s decision on March 29, 1994. Accordingly, the trial commissioner’s decision must have been properly issued on March 28, 1994 in order for the respondent to have received it through the postal service on the following day. Under these circumstances, we do not find that it is necessary to remand this issue for a determination of the date on which the commissioner’s decision was sent. See Conaci v. Hartford Hospital, 36 Conn. App. 298 (1994). We conclude that the respondent’s petition for review was not filed within the time limits required by § 31-301(a) and we thus must dismiss it as untimely.
The respondent’s appeal is dismissed.
Commissioners Roberta Smith Tracy and Amado J. Vargas concur.