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

Spak v. Shelton Lake Residence and Health

CASE NO. 4372 CRB-4-01-3

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

APRIL 26, 2001

SALOME SPAK

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

SHELTON LAKE RESIDENCE AND HEALTH

EMPLOYER

and

EBI COMPANIES

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

DISMISSAL OF APPEAL RELATING TO § 31-290a CLAIM

The claimant has petitioned for review from the March 14, 2001 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District. In that Finding and Dismissal the trial commissioner dismissed the claimant’s claim regarding an alleged violation of § 31-290a C.G.S. which prohibits discrimination against claimants who pursue their rights under our Workers’ Compensation Act. Additionally, the trial commissioner found that there was no undue delay of payments on the part of the respondents, and thus denied the claimant’s request for interest and attorney’s fees.

This tribunal has repeatedly held that the Compensation Review Board lacks jurisdiction over appeals relating to § 31-290a, as that statute specifically provides: “Any party aggrieved by the decision of the commissioner may appeal the decision to the Appellate Court.” Rondini v. Tectonic Industries, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 210, 1231 CRD-6-91-5 (Dec. 4, 1992); Morales v. Hydro Conduit Corp., 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 10, 2155 CRB-6-94-9 (Oct. 17, 1994); see also Erisoty v. Merrow Machine Co., 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 131, 1639 CRB-6-93-2 (June 25, 1993), aff’d, 34 Conn. App. 708 (1994), Motion for Reargument Denied (7/20/94), cert. denied, 231 Conn. 908 (1994). Accordingly, we must dismiss the claimant’s appeal insofar as it relates to the § 31-290a claim. However, as the claimant in her appeal has also alleged that the trial commissioner erred in denying her request for interest and attorney’s fees, which is a separate issue from the § 31-290a claim, we will schedule that portion of her appeal to be heard by this board.

In accordance with the above, the appeal is therefore dismissed as to the § 31-290a C.G.S. claim.

John A. Mastropietro, Chairman

Compensation Review Board

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: December 21, 2004

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/2001/4372crb.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