Opinion
CASE NO. 1061, CRD-5-90-6
AUGUST 29, 1991
The claimant appeared pro se at the trial level and was represented on appeal by Martin Walsh, Esq. Watstein Watstein, P.C.
The respondents were represented by Colette Mauborgne, Esq., Maher Williams.
This Petition for Review from the June 15, 1990 Supplemental Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Fifth District was heard February 22, 1991 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Frank Verrilli, and Donald Doyle.
OPINION
Claimant has appealed the Fifth District June 15, 1990 Supplemental Finding and Award. The appeal was received in the Fifth district office June 27, 1990.
Sec. 31-301.(a) provides "at any time within ten days after entry of such 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 division by filing the office of the commissioner from which such award or such decision on a motion originated an appeal petition and five copies thereof." In the instant matter the claimant and his spouse submitted affidavits stating that they did not receive the Fifth District commissioner's supplemental Finding and Award until either "June 17, or 18. 1990." Affidavit of James Shaskus, dated February 14, 1991.
Section 31-301(a) clearly provides the time in which an appeal must be taken. Claimant did not comply with the statutorily mandated time requirements for filing his Petition for Review; we therefore lack jurisdiction over the late filed appeal. See Corona v. Uniroyal Chemical, Inc., 987 CRD 5-90-3 (decided March 13, 1971).
The appeal is therefore dismissed.
It Commissioners Frank Verrilli and Donald Doyle concur.