Jernigan v. Industrial Components

CASE NO. 3054 CRB-6-95-4

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

JUNE 20, 1996

RONALD JERNIGAN

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

INDUSTRIAL COMPONENTS

EMPLOYER

and

PROVIDENCE WASHINGTON INSURANCE

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented by William A. Hamzy, Esq., Law Offices of Alfred F. Morrocco, Jr. & Associates, 22 Summer St., P.O. Box 1660, Bristol, CT 06010.

The respondents were represented by Jason Dodge, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton & Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Blvd., Glastonbury, CT 06033-4412.

This Petition for Review from the April 13, 1995 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Sixth District was heard October 13, 1995 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commissioner Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Roberta Smith Tracy and Amado J. Vargas.

DISMISSAL ORDER

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has filed an untimely petition for review from the Sixth District Commissioner’s April 13, 1995 Finding and Dismissal. Moreover, the claimant has failed to file either his reasons of appeal or a legal brief with this Board, and did not file a motion to correct.

The claimant’s petition for review was filed on April 27, 1995, fourteen days after the trial commissioner’s Finding and Award had been issued on April 13, 1995. 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. 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); Famiglietti v. Dossert Corporation, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 65, 804 CRD-5-88-12 (April 17, 1990); 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, or that the trial commissioner’s decision was not mailed to the parties in a timely 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 must dismiss it as untimely.

The claimant’s appeal is dismissed as untimely.

Commissioners Roberta Smith Tracy and Amado J. Vargas concur.