Kulig v. Crown Supermarket

CASE NO. 3335 CRB-6-96-5

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

NOVEMBER 25, 1997

TERESA KULIG

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

CROWN SUPERMARKET

EMPLOYER

and

AETNA LIFE & CASUALTY CO.

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented by Jacek Smigelski, Esq., 122 Main St., P. O. Box 875, New Britain, CT 06050.

The respondents were represented by Christine Yeomans, Esq., Law Offices of Christine Harrigan, Esq., City Place One, 185 Asylum St., Hartford, CT 06103-3402.

This Petition for Review from the March 19, 1996 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Sixth District was heard March 14, 1997 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners James J. Metro and John A. Mastropietro.

OPINION

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has petitioned for review from the March 19, 1996 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Sixth District. The petition for review was not filed until May 2, 1996. The ten-day appeal period allowed by § 31-301(a) began running on March 19, 1996, the day the claimant was sent meaningful notice of the decision—not the date it was received, as the claimant argues. Freeman v. Hull Dye & Print, Inc., 39 Conn. App. 717, 720 (1995); Conaci v. Hartford Hospital, 36 Conn. App. 298, 303 (1994).

We do not have the authority to overrule two decisions of our Appellate Court that specifically address this matter, despite the claimant’s vehement protests that the Conaci standard ignores the reality that notice is not always received within ten days after it is mailed. The simple fact is that this board does not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of a claim once we determine that an appeal is untimely, as it was here. Freeman, supra. Legally, we can do nothing but dismiss this appeal.

Commissioners James J. Metro and John A. Mastropietro concur.