Summary
In Fortin, the claimant filed a cross appeal within ten days after the respondent had filed an appeal, but the claimant's cross appeal was not filed within ten days of the trial commissioner's decision.
Summary of this case from Iannarone v. Conn. Dept. of Menal Retd., NoOpinion
CASE NO. 138 CRD-6-82
SEPTEMBER 19, 1983
The Claimant-Appellant was represented by Harry D. Weller.
The Respondent-Appellee was represented by Jane Comerford, Assistant Attorney General.
This Petition for Review from the March 12, 1982 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Sixth District was heard on March 25, 1983 before a Compensation Review Division Panel consisting of Commissioners Rhoda Loeb, A. Paul Berte and Darius J. Spain.
FINDING AND DISMISSAL OF CROSS APPEAL
Claimant's cross-appeal is dismissed.
This Finding and Dismissal was written by Commissioner Rhoda Loeb for the entire panel.
OPINION
This Appeal concerns one legal issue, namely whether this Compensation Review Division has jurisdiction to act upon the cross-appeal filed by Claimant.
On March 12, 1982, the Commissioner for the Sixth District issued a Finding and Award in favor of the Claimant. On March 19, 1982, Respondent State of Connecticut appealed the decision of the Commissioner, filing with the Compensation Review Division a Petition for Review along with Reasons for Appeal. Claimant filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal against the State accompanied by Reasons for Appeal on April 1, 1982, more than ten days after the issuance of the Finding and Award.
Claimant-Cross Appeal Appellant, argues that under Connecticut General Statutes, Section 31-301 and Regulation 31-301-1, adopted thereunder, regulations concerning appeals concern only the time limits on an original appeal and that the Supreme Court procedures which permit a party to file a cross appeal within ten days of the filing of an original appeal are applicable.
Respondent State of Connecticut argues that Section 31-301 is explicit that either party may appeal from a Finding and Award by filing an appeal petition that must be filed within ten days after entry of such award and that the language of the statute is unambiguous and mandatory concerning the filing period.
Where the language of the statute is clear, the legislative intent must be determined by the plain language used in the statute. Gomeau v. Forrest, 176 Conn. 523 (1979), Anderson v. Ludgin, 175 Conn. 545 (1978). Explicit statutory language is not a proper subject for judicial intervention. Associated Credit Co. v. Nogic, 6 Conn. Cir. 745 (1974).
The procedure for Supreme Court appeals is not applicable here because under Section 31-301 a Workers' Compensation appeal procedure is distinct from a "civil action" and the Legislature so intended. Chieppo v. Robert E. McMichael, Inc., 169 Conn. 646 (1975). Workers' Compensation proceedings must comply with the statutory provisions of Section 31-301 governing appeals and Regulation 31-301-1 promulgated thereunder. Neither the statutory procedure for appeal nor the form set forth in the regulations has been complied with.
For these reasons stated herein Claimant's cross-appeal is dismissed.
Commissioners Berte and Spain join in this opinion.