Opinion
CASE NO. 756 CRD-7-88-8
DECEMBER 6, 1989
The claimant was represented by Judith Rosenberg, Esq., Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin Kuriansky.
The respondent-insurer was represented by Janson Dodge, Esq. Anne Kelly, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton Stabnick.
The respondent-employer was represented at the trial level by Kevin Maher, Esq. Maher Williams.
Neither Attorney Maher nor Attorney Blackall participated in the proceedings at the Appellate Level.
This Petition for Review from the July 26, 1988 Finding and Order Granting Motion to Preclude of the Commissioner for the Seventh District was heard September 30, 1989 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Gerald Kolinsky and Frank J. Verrilli.
OPINION
Respondents' appeal from the Seventh District July 26, 1988 Finding and Order Granting a Motion to Preclude was filed August 8, 1988. As the appeal was not filed within the ten day period set forth in Sec. 31-301, C.G.S., claimant moved to dismiss on August 10.
Section 31-301 (a) C.G.S. provides in pertinent part, "At any time within ten days after entry of . . . [an] award by the commissioner. . . either party may appeal therefrom to the compensation review division by filing in the office of the commissioner from which such award or such decision on a motion originated an appeal petition. . ."
Subsequently on August 31 respondents filed a Motion to Correct. The Motion to Correct was granted in part and denied in part in the trial commissioner's order of September 8, 1988. The granted paragraphs of the Motion to Correct were not sufficient to alter the commissioner's conclusions reached in his July 26, 1988 ruling.
Respondents' filed Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion to Correct dated August 3, 1988 was filed August 8, 1988. Said motion sought an extension of the Motion to Correct deadline until 20 days after receipt of all formal hearing transcripts and was granted by the trial commissioner.
Because respondents failed to file their petition within the time limits of Sec. 31-301 C.G.S. we must dismiss the respondents' appeal. As noted in Johnston v. ARA Services, Inc. 765 CRD-7-88-8 (June 29, 1988), "[S]tatutory requirements. . . must be satisfied in order for C.R.D. appellate jurisdiction to lie. `A statutory right to appeal may be taken advantage of only by strict compliance' with the statutory Provisions by which it is created.' Conn. Bank and Trust Co. v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, 202 Conn. 150, 154 (1987) citations omitted."
Respondents, argue that a second Petition for Review filed September 16, 1988 after the ruling on their Motion to Correct was timely filed and therefore their appeal should not be dismissed. We addressed this issue in Imbrogno v. Stamford Hospital, 5 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 99, 610 CRD-8-87 (1988). In Imbrogno, we held that a Motion to Correct filed after the ten day appeal period had elapsed did not toll the appeal period. The statute did not permit such, "back door" attempts at access to appellate procedure. Respondents do not persuade us that Imbrogno does not apply.
We, therefore, dismiss the respondents' appeals. Commissioners Gerald Kolinsky, and Frank J. Verrilli concur.