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

Kenyon v. General Dynamics Corp./Electric Boat Div.

CASE NO. 4521 CRB-1-02-4

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

JUNE 4, 2002

ROBERT W. KENYON

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP./ELECTRIC BOAT DIV.

EMPLOYER

and

NATIONAL EMPLOYERS INSURANCE CO.

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

DISMISSAL ORDER

The claimant, acting pro se, has filed a petition for review dated April 19, 2002, in response to an April 1, 2002 ruling of the trial commissioner that ostensibly denied a Motion to Correct. For the reasons explained below, we believe that this appeal is not properly before this board, and dismiss it as moot.

The claimant in this case filed a claim against his former employer, Electric Boat, alleging that he was improperly terminated pursuant to § 31-290a C.G.S. On November 16, 2001, the respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss his action on the ground that his claim is pre-empted by a stipulation that was approved on February 20, 1987. The trial commissioner considered that motion, and found that the stipulation did not specifically except a § 31-290a claim from the settlement between the claimant and Electric Boat. He therefore granted the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss on February 11, 2002. The claimant then filed an appeal from that ruling to this board on March 4, 2002. Shortly thereafter, this board dismissed the claimant’s appeal on the ground that the Compensation Review Board lacks jurisdiction over appeals from § 31-290a decisions. See Kenyon v. General Dynamics Corp./Electric Boat Division, 4497 CRB-1-02-3 (March 13, 2002); see also Rondini v. Tectonic Industries, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 210, 1231 CRD-6-91-5 (Dec. 4, 1992).

Within a few days of receiving our ruling, the claimant filed a Hearing Request form with the First District office that was received on March 22, 2002. The hearing request is for an informal hearing, and the reason for the hearing is listed as “Motion to Correct—Jurisdictional dismissal, PREV 290-A 2/11/02 Comm. M.S. Miles.” On April 1, 2002, the trial commissioner wrote on that hearing request form, “Motion to Correct is DENIED,” and added his signature. The claimant then filed a petition for review on April 19, 2002, that purports to be from the April 1, 2002 ruling on his Motion to Correct. He has also filed Reasons for Appeal that cite his continuing demand that he be allowed to return to employment with the respondent employer, among other things.

The claimant may not have understood that, in our state workers’ compensation system, a Motion to Correct is not an issue to be taken up at an informal hearing. A Motion to Correct is a document that one files pursuant to Admin. Reg. § 31-301-4 if one seeks to correct the factual findings of the trial commissioner. According to the regulation, within two weeks after the finding has been filed (and, in this case, the finding was filed on February 11, 2002), either party may file a written motion explaining which findings it seeks to have corrected, along with the portions of the evidence that are relevant to the requested corrections. This motion is filed with the trial commissioner, and a denial of such a motion may normally be appealed to this board along with the ruling on the underlying award or dismissal order. Of course, if this board lacks jurisdiction over the subject of that order (as it does here), we would also lack jurisdiction over a Motion to Correct that order.

It seems that here, the claimant filed a hearing request that was treated by the First District as a Motion to Correct, without any supporting documents that would normally make up a Motion to Correct. This “motion” was then denied by the trial commissioner. Legally, this entire sequence of actions would have no real effect, as the claimant’s hearing request was improper, and there was nothing substantive attached to it that could have formed the basis of a Motion to Correct. Accordingly, this appeal is not only outside this board’s jurisdiction because it stems from a § 31-290a claim, but the petition for review is also moot, as there is no meaningful disposition possible given the nature of the underlying ruling.

The claimant’s appeal is hereby dismissed.

John A. Mastropietro, Chairman

Compensation Review Board

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Workers’ Compensation Commission

Page last revised: December 17, 2004

Page URL: http://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/2002/4521crb.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