CASE NO. 3546 CRB-03-96-01
COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
JUNE 4, 1998
The claimant was represented by Gerard McEnery, Esq., 142 Temple St., New Haven, CT 06510.
The respondents were represented by Margaret Corrigan, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton & Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Blvd., Glastonbury, CT 06033-4412.
This Petition for Review from the January 12, 1996 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Third District was heard October 17, 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 January 12, 1996 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Third District. The respondents have moved to dismiss that petition for review on the ground that it was filed in an untimely manner. We grant the respondents’ motion.
Section 31-301(a) requires a party seeking to appeal an order of the trial commissioner to file its appeal within ten days of the date notice of the decision was sent to the parties. Freeman v. Hull Dye & Print, Inc., 39 Conn. App. 717, 720 (1995); Conaci v. Hartford Hospital, 36 Conn. App. 298, 303 (1994). “It is the sending of notice, and not the receipt thereof, that starts the appeal period running.” Vega v. Waltsco, Inc., 46 Conn. App. 298, 300 (1997), affirming 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 307, 2078 CRB-2-94-6 (June 21, 1996). In determining the date that notice of a decision was sent, we are cognizant of standard Workers’ Compensation Commission practice, which is to send out notice of its decisions immediately. “Without evidence to suggest that such procedure was not followed in a given case, we will usually presume that the date on the decision accurately reflects the date notice was mailed to the parties.” Id., 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 308, n. 1.
Here, the Finding and Award is dated January 12, 1996. The claimant acknowledged receiving the decision on January 16, 1996 in his January 25, 1996 “Statement in Support of Petition.” No assertion has been made that the decision was mailed later than Friday, January 12, 1996. As January 22, 1996 was a Monday, and a regular business day of this Commission, the claimant’s petition for review was due on that date. However, it was not filed until January 25, 1996. As this board lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the merits of an untimely appeal, we must grant the respondents’ motion to dismiss. See Vega, supra, 46 Conn. App. 300.
Commissioners James J. Metro and John A. Mastropietro concur.