Vastola v. A.C.E.S.

The claimant was represented by Howard Lawrence, Esq., One Trumbull St., New Haven, CT 06511, who did not appear at oral argument and requested that his case be taken on the papers.

The respondents were represented by Neil Ambrose, Esq., Letizia & Ambrose, 1764 Litchfield Tpke., Woodbridge, CT 06525.

This Petition for Review from the September 26, 1996 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Third District was heard May 23, 1997 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners James J. Metro and John A. Mastropietro.

DISMISSAL ORDER

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has petitioned for review from the September 26, 1996 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Third District. Other than the petition for review, the claimant has not filed any documents in support of her appeal, such as Reasons for Appeal, a brief, or a Motion to Correct. Also, the respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss this appeal on October 16, 1996, based on the fact that the claimant’s appeal was filed more than ten days after the date the trier issued his decision. Although the claimant objects that she did not receive the Finding and Dismissal until September 30, 1996, § 31-301(a) C.G.S. requires that the appeal be filed within ten days of the day “on which the party wanting to appeal is sent meaningful notice of the commissioner’s decision.” Freeman v. Hull Dye & Print, Inc., 39 Conn. App. 717, 720 (1995) (citations omitted). The Finding and Dismissal was certified as having been mailed on September 26, 1996, pursuant to the procedure of this Commission. See Vega v. Waltsco, Inc., 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 307, 308 n.1, 2078 CRB-2-94-6 (June 21, 1996).

Where a claimant’s petition for review is untimely filed, this board lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. Also, the claimant has neglected to actively pursue her appeal in contravention of Practice Book § 4184A. See Howser v. Olsen Mobeck & Associates, Inc., 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 221, 2250 CRB-6-94-12 (April 29, 1996); Esquillin v. Pinto Lavado Enterprises, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 148, 1914 CRB-2-93-12 (Feb. 1, 1995). For those reasons, we dismiss the instant appeal.