Opinion
CASE NO. 421 CRD-5-85
FEBRUARY 23, 1988
The claimant was represented by Robert Hanahan, Esq., and Paul Shea, Esq., both of Shea Hanahan.
The respondents were represented by Robert Beach, Esq., Naab Danforth.
This Petition for Review from the August 12, 1985 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Fifth District was heard December 5, 1986 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Robin Waller and Andrew Denuzze.
OPINION
Claimant's decedent, an employee of the Respondent Town, suffered a Fatal heart attack January 17, 1983. Claimant filed a notice of claim for survivors' benefits by certified mail with the Town April 25, 1983. On January 31, 1983 the Fifth District Office had received a "Notice to Compensation Commissioner and Employee of Intention to Contest Liability and Pay Compensation", Form 43-67. On its face, this notice was also addressed to the deceased employee Peter P. Butkus III. As far as the record shows, the notice to the Commissioner was sent by ordinary mail and not by certified or registered mail as required by Sec. 31-321, C.G.S. Understandably, the record does not show that the decedent received a notice sent two weeks after his death.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the Fifth District Commissioner's August 12, 1985 Finding and Award was correct in granting Claimant's Motion to Preclude Defenses.
Respondents argue their January 31 disclaimer to the Commissioner was sufficient to comply with Sec. 31-297(b), C.G.S. We cannot agree. No notice of disclaimer was ever sent to the widow either before or after the April 25, 1983 Notice of Claim for benefits. And it is the widow who is the claimant here, not the deceased or his estate. The widow is asserting Sec. 31-306 rights in her own status as a dependent, De La Torre v. State of Connecticut, 148 CRD-1-82, 2 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 95 (1984).
Even if we were to assume, which we do not, that a notice sent to the deceased at the abode shared by his spouse was notice sent to the surviving spouse, that January 31 notice did not fulfill Sec. 31-321 requirements and therefore is of no force and effect, Skorupski v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 338 CRD-3-84, 2 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 133 (1985). It is not necessary here to repeat the discussion in De La Torre and Skorupski or to review the cases there cited. We need only say they provide ample support for the trial Commissioner's ruling.
We, therefore, affirm the Commissioner of the Fifth District's Finding and Award granting Claimant's Motion to Preclude defense.
Commissioners Robin Waller and Andrew Denuzze concur.