Opinion
CASE NO. 5156 CRB-4-06-11CLAIM NO. 400027240
NOVEMBER 21, 2007
This Petition for Review from the October 25, 2006 Order of the Commissioner acting for the Fifth District was heard May 18, 2007 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman John A. Mastropietro and Commissioners George Waldron and Ernie R. Walker.
The claimant was represented by Chris Meisenkothen, Esq., Early, Ludwick Sweeney, 265 Church Street, 11th Floor, P.O. Box 1866, New Haven, CT 06508-1866.
The employer was represented by Pepe Hazard, One Goodwin Square, Hartford, CT 06103; Shepro Blake, 2051 Main Street, Stratford, CT 06615 and Bai, Pollock, Blueweiss Mulcahey, P.C., One Corporate Drive, 5th Floor, Shelton, CT 06484. However, they did not file a brief or appear at oral argument.
The respondent General Reinsurance Corporation was represented by Allan Taylor, Esq., and Eric L. Sussman, Esq., Day, Berry Howard, LLP, CityPlace I, Hartford, CT 06103-3499.
The respondent National Union Fire Insurance Company was represented by Law Offices of Jack V. Genovese II, 200 Glastonbury Boulevard, Suite 301, Glastonbury, CT 06033.
The respondent CNA Insurance Companies was represented by David Weil, Esq., Nuzzo Roberts, One Town Center, P.O. Box 747, Cheshire, CT 06410.
The Hartford Insurance Group was represented by Lucas D. Strunk, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Boulevard, Glastonbury, CT 06033.
The respondent CIGA was represented by Joseph Passaretti, Esq., Montstream May, 655 Winding Brook Drive, P.O. Box 1087, Glastonbury, CT 06033-6087.
The respondent Zurich North America was represented by Brian Smith, Esq., D'Attelo, Shields, La Bella Smith, 500 Enterprise Drive, Suite 4B, Rocky Hill, CT 06067.
The respondent Second Injury Fund was represented by J. Sarah Posner, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120.
OPINION
The Second Injury Fund appeals from the October 25, 2006 Order of the Commissioner acting for the Fifth District. In that Order the trial commissioner directed the Fund to pay all the benefits that the commissioner ordered the respondent self insured, Raymark to pay in a September 29, 2006 Order. Both of these Orders were based on the trial commissioner's October 3, 2005 Finding and Award which determined the claimants' entitlement to benefits and the respondents' liability for the claims brought.
We note extensions of time were granted during the pendency of this appeal.
While the appellant presents a number of issues in its appeal, our immediate concern is directed to the Motion to Dismiss the Fund's appeal filed by the respondent National Union Fire Insurance. In support of its Motion to Dismiss the respondent cites our Supreme Court's holding inMatey v. Dember, 256 Conn. 456 (2001) as well as this tribunal's opinion in DeLucia v. Modena, 12 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 212, 1471 CRB 3-92-7 (March 15, 1994). It is clear from the record here that the Second Injury Fund participated in the proceedings culminating in the trial commissioner's October 3, 2005 Finding and Award and that its appeal challenges the findings and the conclusions drawn by the commissioner in that Finding and Award.
In Matey, the Court held that where the Second Injury Fund fully participated in proceedings resulting in the commissioner's Finding and Award the subsequent order of payment directed against the Fund pursuant to § 31-355(b) did not provide the Fund with "yet another opportunity to relitigate its claims." Id., 494. In DeLucia, supra, this tribunal did not permit the Second Injury Fund to challenge the findings of an earlier Finding and Award following the Fund's appeal of a subsequent Finding and Award. Id., note 5. The transcripts reflect that the Fund actively participated in the proceedings before the trial commissioner resulting in the commissioner's October 3, 2005 Finding and Award.
This tribunal's appellate jurisdiction is limited. Section 31-301(a) provides:
Public Act 07-31 § 2 has since amended § 31-301(a).
At any time within twenty days after entry of an award by the commissioner, after a decision of the commissioner upon a motion or after an order by the commissioner according to the provisions of section 31-299b, either party may appeal therefrom to the Compensation Review Board by filing in the office of the commissioner from which the award or the decision on a motion originated an appeal petition and five copies thereof.
Ruling as we have we do not reach the merits of the Second Injury Fund's appeal. The Fund's appeal of issues stemming from the October 3, 2005 Finding and Award is untimely. We therefore dismiss the Fund's appeal.
Commissioners George Waldron and Ernie R. Walker concur.