CASE NO. 3331 CRB-2-96-4
COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997
RENEL ST. LOT
FRANKLIN MUSHROOM FARM
ITT HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP
The claimant was represented by Gary A. Cicchiello, Esq., Cicchiello & Cicchiello, 582 West Main St., Norwich, CT 06360, who did not appear at oral argument.
The respondents were represented by Medina Jett, Esq., Edward Henfey & Associates, 55 Farmington Ave., Hartford, CT 06105.
This Petition for Review from the April 12, 1996 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Second District was heard January 10, 1997 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners James J. Metro and John A. Mastropietro.
JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has filed a petition for review from the April 12, 1996 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Second District. In that decision, the trial commissioner found that the claimant failed to meet his burden of proof that he sustained a compensable injury, as the claimant failed to appear at the formal hearing on April 3, 1996. The trial commissioner thus dismissed the claimant’s claim with prejudice. The claimant has now failed to appear at oral argument before this board. In addition, the claimant failed to file his appeal in a timely manner.
Specifically, the claimant’s petition for review was filed on April 24, 1996, twelve days after the trial commissioner’s Finding and Dismissal had been issued on April 12, 1996. The claimant’s petition for review was not filed within the time limit prescribed by § 31-301(a), 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 contends in his brief that he filed the appeal within ten days after receiving the trial commissioner’s decision. This board may only consider appeals filed within ten days of the date that meaningful notice of the commissioner’s decision was sent to the appellant. § 31-301(a); Conaci v. Hartford Hospital, 36 Conn. App. 298, 303 (1994). Timeliness depends upon the date that meaningful notice was sent to the parties rather than when meaningful notice was received. Conaci, supra, 303-304; Vega v. Waltsco, Inc., 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op 307, aff’d., 46 Conn. App. 298 (1997); 2078 CRB-2-94-6 (June 21, 1996). Cyr v. Domino’s Pizza, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 151, 2168 CRB-1-94-10 (Jan. 26, 1996); As the claimant’s petition for review was not filed within the time limits required by § 31-301(a) we thus must dismiss it as untimely.
Additionally, the claimant’s appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4184A. See Divita v. Thames Valley Steel, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 50, 1541 CRB-2-92-10 (Jan. 26, 1994); Milardo v. Shuck Petroleum, 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 279, 1559 CRB-8-92-11 (Nov. 22, 1993); Hargatai v. Copy Data, Inc., 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 106, 107, 1475 CRB-4-92-7 (June 2, 1993).
The claimant’s appeal is dismissed.
Commissioners James J. Metro and John A. Mastropietro concur.