CASE NO. 2085 CRB-2-94-6
COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
JUNE 29, 1995
NO RECORD OF INSURANCE
SECOND INJURY FUND
The claimant was represented by George V. Lawler, Esq., Lawler & Associates, 75 Berlin Rd., Cromwell, CT 06416, who did not appear at oral argument.
The respondent employer did not appear at oral argument, but was represented at the trial level by Steven Rosenblatt, President, Spring Industries, 465 Middlefield St., Middletown, CT 06457.
The Second Injury Fund was represented by Philip M. Schulz, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, P. O. Box 120, 55 Elm St., Hartford, CT 06141-0120.
This Petition for Review from the June 16, 1994 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Second District was heard March 10, 1995 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of Commissioners George Waldron, Roberta Smith D’Oyen, and Amado J. Vargas.
GEORGE WALDRON, COMMISSIONER. The respondent employer filed an untimely petition for review from the Second District Commissioner’s June 16, 1994 Finding and Award. Moreover, the employer did not appear at oral argument before this Board on March 10, 1995.
The respondent’s petition for review was filed on June 29, 1994, thirteen days after the trial commissioner’s Finding and Award had been issued on June 16, 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). We do not agree with the respondent’s contention that only business days should be counted in determining the ten day appeal period. See Corona, supra.
The respondent has not contended that he 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. Rather, the respondent contends that he received the decision on June 20, 1994.1 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 claimant’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 as untimely.
Commissioners Roberta Smith D’Oyen and Amado J. Vargas concur.
1 The trial commissioner’s decision was issued on Thursday, June 16, 1994. The respondent president states in his response to the claimant’s motion to dismiss that he received the decision on Monday, June 20, 1994. It thus appears that the commissioner’s decision was mailed properly on June 16, 1994. BACK TO TEXT