Opinion
CASE NO. 579 CRD-7-87
JUNE 21, 1988
The claimant was represented by Jeffrey Ginzberg, Esq., Perelmutter Potash.
The respondent-insurer was represented by Daniel P. Beharry, Esq., and Richard Renehan, Esq., Gager, Henry Harkis. The respondent-Second Injury Fund was represented by Diane Duhamel, Esq., Assistant Attorney General.
This Petition for Review from the March 17, 1987 Ruling Granting Motion to Preclude of the Commissioner for the Seventh District was heard April 27, 1988, before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Frank Verrilli and A. Thomas White, Jr.
RULING ON MOTION
The March 17, 1987 decision of the Seventh District granting the claimant's Motion to Preclude is reversed. The appeal is sustained and the matter is remanded to the District for further proceedings.
OPINION
This is a claim by the surviving dependent widow under Section 31-306, C.G.S. Her husband, Richard Chute II, suffered fatal injuries from an automobile accident late in the evening of May 23, 1985 in Weston, Connecticut. The decedent was then on a special errand for the respondent Mobil Shipping and Transportation Co. A claim by the "Estate of Richard Chute" was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, June 19, 1985 to Mobil at its New York office. This was received June 21, 1985. Mobil mailed a disclaimer to the attorney, "Representative of deceased Richard Chute" July 9, 1985, but it was not received until July 12, 1985. Since the disclaimer was not filed until the twenty-first day, the Commissioner held that it failed to conform with the twenty day limitation of Section 31-297(b), C.G.S. He therefore granted Claimant's Motion to Preclude. We find the Motion should not have been granted.
Claimant's Notice of Claim of June 21, 1985 failed to include all the elements required in Section 31-294, C.G.S., Fuller v. Central Paving Co., 655 CRD-1-87 (8/2/88), Elmassri v. Vinco, Inc., 584 CRD-7-87 (8/2/88), because it did not properly identify the claimant. The claimant was the surviving dependent widow not the Estate of Richard Chute, II, De La Torre v. State of Connecticut, Board of Education and Services for the Blind, 148 CRD-1-82, 2 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op 95 (1984). Therefore, it was not a proper notice on which to base a Section 31-297(b) irrebuttable presumption of liability.
Moreover, the defense raised by the respondent-employer was a jurisdictional one as in Castro v. Viera, 207 Conn. 420 (1988), rev'g our decision in 442 CRD-1-86, 4 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 64 (1987). The appellants here as in Castro allege the decedent to have been an independent contractor and that therefore no worker compensation subject matter jurisdiction exists. Under the Castro holding they therefore have a right to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of jurisdiction.
We reverse the March 17, 1987 decision granting the Motion to Preclude and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Commissioners Frank Verrilli and A. Thomas White, Jr. concur.