Couto-Radcliff v. Glen Hill Convalescent Center

The claimant was represented by Susan Wilcox, Esq., One Corporate Drive, Danbury, CT 06810-4130.

The respondents were represented by Christopher Foley, Esq., 3000 Whitney Ave., Suite 103, Hamden, CT 06518.

This Petition for Review from the March 14, 1997 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Seventh District was heard August 15, 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 respondents have filed an untimely petition for review from the March 14, 1997 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Seventh District. The respondents’ petition for review was filed on March 27, 1997, thirteen days after the trial commissioner’s Finding and Order had been issued on March 14, 1997.

The respondents contend that they are appealing from the April 21, 1997 denial of their Motion to Correct. The respondents filed their Motion to Correct on April 8, 1997, well beyond the ten day appeal period. The filing of a motion to correct after the ten day appeal period does not serve to extend the appeal period. Rushton v. VIP Limousine, 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 117, 118, 756 CRD-7-88-8 (Dec. 6, 1989) (citing Imbrogno v. Stamford Hospital, 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 99, 610 CRD-8-87 (June 9, 1988), rev’d. in part1 28 Conn. App. 113 (1992)).

The respondents’ petition for review was not filed within the time limit prescribed by § 31-301(a), 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. Corona v. Uniroyal Chemical, Inc., 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 105, 987 CRD-5-90-3 (March 13, 1991) (dismissing appeal to this Board filed on the eleventh day following trial commissioner’s decision); Famiglietti v. Dossert Corporation, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 65, 804 CRD-5-88-12 (April 17, 1990); Johnston v. ARA Services Inc., 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 19, 20, 765 CRD-7-88-8 (June 29, 1989).

At oral argument, the respondents contended that they received the trial commissioner’s decision on March 18, 1997, and thus that they had ten days from said date of receipt to file a timely appeal. We disagree. This board may only consider appeals filed within ten days of the date that meaningful notice of the commissioner’s decision was sent to the appellant. § 31-301(a); Conaci v. Hartford Hospital, 36 Conn. App. 298, 303 (1994). Timeliness depends upon the date that meaningful notice was sent to the parties rather than when meaningful notice was received. Conaci, supra, 303-304; Cyr v. Domino’s Pizza, 15 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 151, 2168 CRB-1-94-10 (Jan. 26, 1996); Vega v. Waltsco, Inc., 15 Conn. Workers Comp. Rev. Op. 307, 2078 CRB-2-94-6 (June 21, 1996). The respondents’ petition for review was not filed within the time limits required by § 31-301(a) and we thus must dismiss it as untimely.

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

1 The court stated, “We affirm the compensation review board on all issues except the failure to award interest on the medical bills for which payment was ordered by the commissioner.” Imbrogno, 28 Conn. App. at 114. BACK TO TEXT