You have reached the original website of the |
CRB OPINIONS AND ANNOTATIONS |
CASE NO. 2290 CRB-3-93-11
COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 4, 1995
WILBERT DRAUGHN
CLAIMANT-APPELLANT
v.
WALLACE INTERNATIONAL SILVERSMITHS, INC.
EMPLOYER
and
HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.
INSURER
RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES
APPEARANCES:
The claimant was represented by Jeffrey Rosenberg, Esq., 23 Kingsbridge Way, Madison, CT 06443.
The respondents were represented by Kevin Maher, Esq., Maher & Williams, 1300 Post Rd, Fairfield, CT 06430.
This Motion to Dismiss the Claimant’s Petition for Review from the August 16, 1993 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Third District was heard June 9, 1995 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Roberta Smith D’Oyen and Amado J. Vargas.
JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant filed an untimely petition for review from the Third District Commissioner’s August 16, 1993 Finding and Award. The claimant’s petition for review was filed on November 8, 1993, almost three months after the trial commissioner’s Finding and Award had been issued on August 16, 1993. The claimant’s petition for review was not filed within the time limit prescribed by §31-301(a), 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 . . . .” We note that the respondents are entitled to raise this issue even after the prescribed time period contained in the Supreme Court rules because it implicates the subject matter jurisdiction of this Board over the claimant’s appeal. Johnston v. ARA Services Inc., 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 19, 20, 765 CRD-7-88-8 (June 29, 1989). The claimant has not contended that he received the commissioner’s decision in an untimely manner. We conclude that the claimant’s petition for review was not filed within the time limits required by §31-301(a) and we thus dismiss it as untimely.
The Motion to Dismiss is granted and the Third District decision is affirmed.
Commissioners Roberta Smith D’Oyen and Amado J. Vargas concur.
You have reached the original website of the |
CRB OPINIONS AND ANNOTATIONS |