State of Connecticut Workers' Compensation Commission, John A. Mastropietro, Chairman
Home News RSS News QUICK Find Index Search E-Mail
General Information Glossary Law CRB Opinions Workers' Compensation Commission Downloadable Forms and Publications Links

Dacres v. David D. Zeigler

CASE NO. 3401 CRB-07-96-08

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

JANUARY 6, 1998

JAMES DACRES

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

DAVID D. ZEIGLER

EMPLOYER

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

and

SECOND INJURY FUND

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was not represented at oral argument. Notice sent to Stephen M. Chizmadia, Esq., 125 Sun Dance Road, Stamford, CT 06905.

The respondents were represented by Philip F. Spillane, Esq., 24 Delay St., Danbury, CT 06810.

The Second Injury Fund was not represented at oral argument. Notice sent to Michelle Truglia, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, 55 Elm St., P. O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120.

This Petition for Review from the August 5, 1996 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Seventh District was heard March 14, 1997 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners John A. Mastropietro and Stephen B. Delaney.

OPINION

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has petitioned for review from the August 7, 1996 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Seventh District. There, the trial commissioner decided that there was no employer-employee relationship between the claimant and the respondent, and dismissed a compensation claim relating to the claimant’s November 7, 1993 back injury.

Generally, the question of whether a claimant is an employee or an independent contractor is a question of fact for the trier. Dupree v. Masters, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 316, 317, 1791 CRB-7-93-7 (April 25, 1995). This case is no different. The commissioner made findings that legally support the conclusion that the claimant was an independent contractor, and we may not retry the case on appeal. Webb v. Pfizer, Inc., 14 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 69, 70-71, 1859 CRB-5-93-9 (May 12, 1995). The claimant also did not file a Motion to Correct, so we may not question the accuracy of the findings themselves on review. Seltenreich v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 135, 136, 2196 CRB-3-94-10 (Jan. 17, 1996).

Even more significantly, the trier’s decision was dated and certified sent on August 5, 1996. There is no allegation that this date is inaccurate. The petition for review was received on August 16, 1996. As Thursday, August 15, 1996 was a regular business day for the Workers’ Compensation Commission (see Practice Book § 4010), the petition for review was filed one day late under § 31-301(a) C.G.S. This board does not have jurisdiction to consider late appeals, even if they are tardy by only a day. O’Connor v. United Parcel Service, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 204, 206, 1741 CRB-4-93-5 (March 30, 1995). The language of the statute is absolute. Thus, we must dismiss the claimant’s petition for review.

Commissioners John A. Mastropietro and Stephen B. Delaney concur.

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: June 29, 2005

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1998/3401crb.htm

Workers’ Compensation Commission Disclaimer, Privacy Policy and Website Accessibility

State of Connecticut Workers' Compensation Commission, John A. Mastropietro, Chairman
Home News RSS News QUICK Find Index Search E-Mail
General Information Glossary Law CRB Opinions Workers' Compensation Commission Downloadable Forms and Publications Links