Kudlacz v. Lindberg Heat Treating et al.

CASE NO. 3407 CRB-8-96-8

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

JUNE 6, 1997

HENRY KUDLACZ

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

LINDBERG HEAT TREATING

EMPLOYER

and

CRAWFORD & COMPANY

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

and

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE

EMPLOYER

and

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The claimant was represented by Jacek Smigelski, Esq., 122 Main St., P. O. Box 875, New Britain, CT 06050-0875.

The respondents Lindberg Heat Treating and Crawford & Co. were represented by William Brown, Esq., McGann, Bartlett, & Brown, 281 Hartford Tpke., Vernon, CT 06066.

The respondents United Parcel Service and Liberty Mutual were represented by Debra Dee, Esq., Law Offices of Nancy Rosenbaum, 655 Winding Brook Drive, P. O. Box 695, Glastonbury, CT 06033.

This Petition for Review from the August 8, 1996 Findings of Facts and Dismissal of Claim by the Commissioner acting for the Eighth District was heard January 24, 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 August 8, 1996 Findings of Facts and Dismissal of Claim by the Commissioner acting for the Eighth District. The petition for review was filed on August 21, 1996. Section 31-301(a) allows a party ten days after the entry of a commissioner’s decision in which to appeal. The ten-day period begins to run “on the day on which the party wanting to appeal is sent meaningful notice of the commissioner’s decision.” Falcone v. United Parcel Service, 3209 CRB-3-95-11 (decided Feb. 11, 1997), quoting Conaci v. Hartford Hospital, 36 Conn. App. 298, 303 (1994). Based on the date of the commissioner’s decision, this appeal should have been filed by Monday, August 19, 1996.

The claimant’s attorney argues that he did not receive a copy of the trial commissioner’s decision by that date. He represents that he received a fax copy of the decision on August 20, 1996, and an original copy on August 22, 1996, based on the postmark in the file. However, the date of receipt of notice is not the issue under Conaci, supra; it is the date meaningful notice of the trier’s decision is sent by this Commission. See Freeman v. Hull Dye & Print, Inc., 39 Conn. App. 717, 720 (1995).

In order to facilitate a determination of when notice of a decision is sent, this Commission requires all commissioners to send out notices of their decisions via certified mail. In this case, there is a certification in the record that notice was sent to all parties on August 8, 1996. Based on the postmarks, the respondents received notice of the decision on August 12, 1996, and August 15, 1996. Only the claimant failed to receive notice within the ten-day appeal period.

Even if we wanted to show leniency in this situation, we could not. The Workers’ Compensation Act and the decisions of our state courts of appeal make it clear that this board simply lacks jurisdiction over a petition for review that is not filed on time. We have no choice but to dismiss the claimant’s appeal for failure to timely file under § 31-301(a).

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