Opinion
CASE NOS. 655 CRD-1-87, 592-CRD-1-87, 665 CRD-7-87
JUNE 2, 1988
CONSOLIDATED OPINION
Three separate matters concerning the same issues involving interpretations of Sec. 31-297 (b), C.G.S. and Sec. 31-294, C.G.S. are here treated together. The results reached may well invite the accusation that we have deserted substance in a legalistic search for linguistic and technical precision. However, we are bound by common law traditions of stare declaim. And certainly the two most recent appellate tribunal interpretations of Sec. 31-297 (b), Castro v. Viera, 207 Conn. 420 (May 10, 1988) and Pelletier v. Caron Pipe Jacking, Inc., 13 Conn. App. 276 (January 19, 1988), cert. denied, 207 Conn. 805 (February 25, 1988), proclaim that the 1967 legislative intent of Sec. 31-297 (b) is to be narrowly construed in 1988.
Claimant Ralph Fuller appealed the October 13, 1987 First District ruling denying his Motion to Preclude defenses under Sec. 31-297 (b). On July 3, 1986 Claimant's attorney, Alan Schuman, sent a certified letter alleging a compensable back injury May 6, 1986. The employer did not respond within the twenty days mandated by the statute. However, the attorney's letter failed to give Claimant's street address.
Zempel's attorney, Helen Apostolidis, complied with Sec. 31-321, C.G.S. and mailed a notice of an April 25, 1985 injury May 23 received by the respondent on May 28. The employer did not respond within the statutory period. But the notice of claim failed to give any address for the employee.
Similarly, Mottoshiskie's attorney Michael L. Shapiro, sent a certified mail notice of a June 16, 1987 injury August 10. This was received by the employer August 13, and no disclaimer was ever filed. Again, the notice of claim omitted Claimant's street address.
Sec. 31-294 requires that a notice of claim "state the name and address of the employee". We have previously ruled that Sec. 31-297 (b) forfeiture of defenses may not be invoked unless there be the strictest compliance with procedural technicalities, Timothy v. Upjohn, 150 CRD-3-82, 2 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 1 (1983); Skorupski v. Commercial Union Assurance Co., 338 CRD-3-84, 2 Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 133 (1985). Pelletier v. Caron Pipe Jacking, Inc., supra, holds that the "written notice of claim" in Sec. 31-297 (b) clearly referred to the notice provision of Sec. 31-294, Id. at 280. We agree with the First District Commissioner who interpreted Sec. 31-294's address requirement to include the street address.
Counsel variously argue that their letters of notice were in substantial compliance with the address requirement, as in Fuller's case it gave the town of Claimant's residence, Bloomfield, and as in all cases they contained the lawyer's address on the letterhead. We do not doubt that the inclusion of such items overcame "any defect or inaccuracy of such notice" for Sec. 31-294 purposes. There is an admitted interaction between Sec. 31-294 and Sec. 31-297 (b), but the two statutes serve different purposes, De Leon v. Jacob Bros., 38 Conn. Sup. 331 (1981), aff'g, 23 CRD-4-80, 1 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 18 (1981). While a written notice of claim lacking one or more of the elements set forth in Sec. 31-294 may be sufficient to meet the time limitations requirement of that statute, it will not satisfy the Sec. 31-297 (b) provisions for creating an irrebuttable presumption of compensability.
Yuknat v. State of Connecticut, 274 CRD-2-83, 3 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 43 (1986), aff'd, 9 Conn. App. 425 (1987) per curiam, cited by Fuller is distinguishable on its facts. There the employer alleged that the written notice did not allege the nature of the injury or degree or whether it employer related. But the claimant-widow had attached to her Sec. 31-294 notice other papers including the death certificate "stating date, place and cause of death", Id. at 44. The totality of the submission supplied all the statutory elements required. Here there were no such attachments.
We, therefore, affirm the First District decisions in Fuller and Zempel and reverse the Seventh District in Mottoshiskie.
Commissioners Frank Verrilli and A. Thomas White, Jr. concur.