CASE NO. 3554 CRB-05-97-03
COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
APRIL 24, 1998
WATERBURY NURSING CENTER/CRESCENT MANOR
The claimant was represented by Neil Johnson, Esq., Law Offices of Johnson & Sierra, 96 Webster St., Hartford, CT 06114.
The respondents were represented by Jennifer Hock, Esq., Montstream & May, 655 Winding Brook Dr., Glastonbury, CT 06033-6087.
This Petition for Review from the February 28, 1997 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Fifth District was heard September 19, 1997 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commissioner Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners James J. Metro and John A. Mastropietro.
JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has filed an untimely petition for review from the February 28, 1997 Finding and Dismissal of the trial commissioner acting for the Fifth District. The claimant contends that the ten day appeal period commences upon receipt of the trial commissioner’s decision.
The claimant’s petition for review was filed on March 11, 1997, eleven days after the trial commissioner’s Finding and Dismissal had been issued on February 28, 1997. 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. Cioffi v. Trumbull Marriot, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 297, 2209 CRB-4-94-11 (June 20, 1996); 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).
We do not agree with the claimant’s contention that the ten day appeal period commences upon receipt of the trial commissioner’s decision. Timeliness depends upon the date that meaningful notice was sent to the parties rather than when meaningful notice was received. Conaci v. Hartford Hospital, 36 Conn. App. 298, 303-304 (1994); Schreck v. City of Stamford, 3322 CRB-7-96-4 (Sept. 23, 1997); Vega v. Waltsco, Inc., 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 307, 2078 CRB-2-94-6 (June 21, 1996) aff’d., 46 Conn. App. 298 (1997); Cyr v. Domino’s Pizza, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 151, 2168 CRB-1-94-10 (Jan. 26, 1996) aff’d., 45 Conn. App. 199 (1997).
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 claimant’s appeal is dismissed.
Commissioners James J. Metro and John A. Mastropietro concur.