CASE NO. 3292 CRB-1-96-3
COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
MAY 16, 1997
AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO.
The claimant was represented by Charles M. Rosenzweig, Esq., 136 Main Street, New Britain, CT 06051-3531.
The respondents were represented by Dan Heffernan, Esq., Law Offices of Christine Harrigan, 185 Asylum Street, City Place, 3rd Floor, Hartford, CT 06103.
This Petition for Review from the September 7, 1995 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the First District was heard November 22, 1996 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commissioner Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners George Waldron and Robin L. Wilson.
JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has filed an untimely petition for review from the September 7, 1995 Finding and Award of the trial commissioner acting for the First District. In support of her appeal, the claimant contends that she has filed a timely appeal from the trial commissioner’s denial of her motion to correct.
The claimant’s petition for review was filed on March 1, 1996, over five months after the trial commissioner’s Finding and Award had been issued on September 7, 1995. The claimant’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 claimant has not contended that she 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. 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. Furthermore, the filing of a motion to correct after the ten day appeal period does not serve to extend the appeal period. Rushton v. VIP Limousine, 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 117, 118, 756 CRD-7-88-8 (Dec. 6, 1989) (citing Imbrogno v. Stamford Hospital, 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 99, 610 CRD-8-87 (1988)).
The claimant’s appeal is dismissed as untimely.
Commissioners George Waldron and Robin L. Wilson concur.