CASE NO. 3528 CRB-08-97-01
COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
APRIL 24, 1998
SECOND INJURY FUND
The claimant was represented by Anne R. Hoyt, Esq., Gussak, Silver, Sklar & Kirsch, 22 Main Street, Moosup, CT 06354.
The employer was represented by William Kohlman, Esq., 58 Huntington St., New London, CT 06320.
The Second Injury Fund was represented by Michael Giammatteo, Assistant Attorney General, 55 Elm St., P.O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120.
This Petition for Review from the January 17, 1997 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Eighth District was heard September 19, 1997 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commissioner Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners James J. Metro and John A. Mastropietro.
JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has filed an untimely petition for review from the January 17, 1997 Finding and Dismissal of the trial commissioner acting for the Eighth District. In support of her appeal, the claimant contends that the appeal was filed within ten days following the receipt of the trial commissioner’s decision.
The claimant’s petition for review was filed on January 31, 1997, over ten days after the trial commissioner’s Finding and Dismissal had been issued on January 17, 1997. 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. Cioffi v. Trumbull Marriot, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 297, 2209 CRB-4-94-11 (June 20, 1996).
We do not agree with the claimant’s contention that the ten day appeal period commences upon receipt of the trial commissioner’s decision. Timeliness depends upon the date that meaningful notice was sent to the parties rather than when meaningful notice was received. Conaci v. Hartford Hospital, 36 Conn. App. 298, 303-304 (1994); Schreck v. City of Stamford, 3322 CRB-7-96-4 (Sept. 23, 1997); Vega v. Waltsco, Inc., 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 307, 2078 CRB-2-94-6 (June 21, 1996) aff’d., 46 Conn. App. 298 (1997); Cyr v. Domino’s Pizza, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 151, 2168 CRB-1-94-10 (Jan. 26, 1996) aff’d., 45 Conn. App. 199 (1997). 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.
Commissioners James J. Metro and John A. Mastropietro concur.