Raucci v. W.H. Brady Company

CASE NO. 2201 CRB-3-94-11

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

DECEMBER 7, 1995

JEANNETTE RAUCCI

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT

v.

W. H. BRADY COMPANY

EMPLOYER

and

TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO.

INSURER

RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

APPEARANCES:

The pro se claimant failed to appear at oral argument.

The Respondents were represented by Joseph J. Passaretti, Jr., Esq., Law Offices of Christine L. Harrigan, 1952 Whitney Ave., Hamden, CT 06517-1209.

The Petition for Review from the October 20, 1994 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner of the Third District was heard June 23, 1995 before the Compensation Review Board panel consisting of Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Roberta S. Tracy and Amado J. Vargas.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The pro se claimant in this matter petitioned for review from the October 20, 1994 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner for the Third District. Her appeal was filed in the Third District Office on November 2, 1994. We now dismiss this petition for review for untimeliness.

Section 31-301(a) C.G.S. provides that “[a]t any time within ten days after entry of an award by the commissioner, after a decision of the commissioner upon a motion or after an order by the commissioner according to the provisions of section 31-299b, either party may appeal . . . .” The Connecticut Appellate Court has interpreted this statute and held that “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.” Conaci v. Hartford Hospital, 36 Conn. App. 298, 303 (1994); see also O’Connor v. United Parcel Service, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 204, 1741 CRB-4-93-5 (March 30, 1995).

The record indicates that meaningful notice was sent to the claimant by certified mail on October 20, 1994. As the tenth day, October 30, 1994, was a Sunday and the commissioner’s office was closed, the claimant had until October 31, 1994 to file her appeal. The record indicates that the petition for review was filed on November 2, 1994, two days after the appeal period expired. This board lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider any claims presented in an untimely appeal. See O’Connor, supra; Johnston v. ARA Services, Inc., 7 Conn. Workers’ Compensation. Rev. Op. 19, 20, 765 CRD-7-88-8 (June 29, 1989). Therefore, we must dismiss the claimant’s appeal for failure to timely file her petition for review.

Commissioners Roberta S. Tracy and Amado J. Vargas concur.