From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Paladino v. Schaller Subaru, Inc.

Workers' Compensation Commission
May 17, 1988
522 CRD 6 (Conn. Work Comp. 1988)

Opinion

CASE NO. 522 CRD-6-86

MAY 17, 1988

The claimant was represented by Jeffrey L. Polinsky, Esq., and Eric Cooper, Esq.

The respondents were represented by Ralph Russo, Esq., Montstream May.

This Petition for Review from the October 2, 1986 Finding Motion to Preclude of the Commissioner for the Sixth District was heard February 26, 1988 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Robin Waller and Gerald Kolinsky.


OPINION


Respondents have appealed October 2, 1986 ruling granting Claimant's Motion to Preclude. The pertinent facts as found by the trial Commissioner are as follows. Claimant's written notice of injury sent certified mail, return receipt requested, was received by the employer January 15, 1986. On January 21, 1986 Respondents filed a Form 43 Notice of Intent to Disclaim Liability sent by ordinary mail. On February 13, 1986 the respondents mailed another Form 43 by certified mail, return receipt requested.

Skorupski v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 2 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 133, 338 CRD-3-84 (1985) held a disclaimer of liability must be filed in accordance with the procedures required under Sec. 31-321, C.G.S. See also, Kelly v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 469 CRD-4-85 (decided April 6, 1988). Section 31-297 (b), C.G.S. requires an employer to file a disclaimer "on or before the twentieth day" after receiving a written notice of claim. The January 21, 1986 filing was a nullity as it was not sent in accordance with Sec. 31-321. When no disclaimer is properly filed within the 20 day period, the conclusive presumption of liability lies unless Claimant's written notice of claim is facially deficient for failure to comply with Sec. 31-294 time limitations Pelletier v. Caron Pipe Jacking, 13 Conn. App. 276 (1988), cert. denied, 207 Conn. 805 (1988). As the notice of claim here was not late on its face, we find that the trial Commissioner was correct in granting the claimant's Motion to Preclude.

We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and affirm the trial Commissioner's ruling granting the Motion to Preclude.

Commissioners Robin Waller and Gerald Kolinsky concur.


Summaries of

Paladino v. Schaller Subaru, Inc.

Workers' Compensation Commission
May 17, 1988
522 CRD 6 (Conn. Work Comp. 1988)
Case details for

Paladino v. Schaller Subaru, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY PALADINO, CLAIMANT-APPELLEE vs. SCHALLER SUBARU, INC., EMPLOYER…

Court:Workers' Compensation Commission

Date published: May 17, 1988

Citations

522 CRD 6 (Conn. Work Comp. 1988)

Citing Cases

Crute v. Arthur Fletcher Fuel Oil Co.

Sartirana v. Town of Winchester, supra. For purposes of Sec. 31-297(b), the subsequently filed, and more…