3712 CRB-05-97-10 (1998). Fenn v. H.L. Bennett Jr., Inc.

• Case Date: November 16, 1998
• Court: Connecticut

Connecticut Workers Compensation 1998. 3712 CRB-05-97-10 (1998). Fenn v. H.L. Bennett Jr., Inc CASE NO. 3712 CRB-05-97-10COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION\ November 16, 1998DUANE FENN CLAIMANT-APPELLANT v. H.L. BENNETT JR., INC. EMPLOYER and CNA INSURANCE CO. INSURER RESPONDENTS-APPELLEESAPPEARANCES: The claimant appeared on his own behalf. The respondents were represented by Howard Levine, Esq., Law Offices of Grant H. Miller, Jr., 29 South Main Street, Suite 310N, West Hartford, CT 06107. This Petition for Review from the October 10, 1997 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Fifth District was heard May 8, 1998 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Michael S. Miles and Stephen B. Delaney. DISMISSAL ORDER JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant has filed an untimely petition for review from the October 10, 1997 Finding and Dismissal of the trial commissioner acting for the Fifth District. In support of his appeal, the claimant contends that the trial commissioner failed to consider the claimant's testimony and other evidence, and thus the trial commissioner's decision should be vacated. The claimant's petition for review was filed on October 28, 1997, over ten days after the trial commissioner's Finding and Dismissal had been issued on October 10, 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). It has repeatedly been held 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. Kudlacz v. Lindberg Heat Treating Company, 49 Conn. App. 1 (1998); Conaci v. Hartford Hospital, 36 Conn. App. 298, 303-304 (1994); Cioffi v. Trumbull Marriot, 15 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 297, 2209 CRB-4-94-11 (June 20, 1996). Timeliness depends upon the date that meaningful notice was sent to the parties rather than when meaningful notice was received. Kudlacz, supra; Conaci, supra. In the instant case, the...