Opinion
CASE NO. 906 CRD-7-89-8
JANUARY 8, 1991
The claimant was represented by Edward T. Dodd, Jr., Esq.
The respondent was represented by Cori-Lynn Webber, Assistant Attorney General.
This petition for Review from the August 14, 1989 Order Denying Motion to Preclude of the Commissioner for the Seventh District was heard June 29, 1990 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners A. Thomas White, Jr. and James Metro.
OPINION
The claimant appeals the commissioner's denial of his Motion to Preclude under Sec. 31-297(b). The commissioner found that the written notice of claim, Form 30 C, failed to properly state the name of claimant's employer. The Form 30 C identified the employer as "Dept. Children and Youth Services," and failed to add "State of Connecticut" to the designation. While the commissioner found the Form 30 C was sufficient to toll the statute of limitation under Sec. 31-294, it was not sufficient to support a Motion to Preclude under Sec. 31-297(b).
In Salvaggio v. Candlewood Valley Bus Co., 6 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 156, 731-CRD-7-88-5 (1989) we reiterated our holding in Fuller v. Central Paving Co., 5 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 92, 655 CRD-1-87 (1988) that for a claimant to prevail on a Motion to Preclude the written notice of claim must strictly meet all the technical requirements of Sec. 31-294. In Salvaggio, supra at 157 we held:
That [Sec. 31-294] statute also states "any employee who has sustained an injury in the course of his employment shall forthwith notify his employer, or some person representing his employer, of such injury." (Emphasis ours.) This part of Sec. 31-294 requires notice to the employer and further infers a requirement that the employer be properly notified. Substantial compliance with these notice provisions may be sufficient to satisfy Sec. 31-294 time limitation requirements, but a stricter standard is necessary to effect Sec. 31-297(b)'s preclusion of defenses.
The Salvaggio, notice of claim identified the employer as Candlewood Bus Company rather than Candlewood Valley Bus Company or Candlewood Transportation. We held that notice insufficient to trigger the preclusive effects of Sec. 31-297(b). The facts in the present matter differ somewhat from Salvaggio. However, we cannot say the commissioner's conclusion is "so unreasonable as to justify . . . [appellate] interference." Bailey v. Mitchell, 113 Conn. 721, 725 (1931).
We, therefore, affirm the Seventh District August 14, 1989 Order Denying Motion to Preclude.
Commissioner's A. Thomas White, Jr. and James Metro Concur.