CASE NO. 697 CRD-7-88-2Workers’ Compensation Commission
AUGUST 23, 1989
The claimant was represented by Gerard S. Spiegel, Esq.
The respondents were represented by Jeffrey G. Schwartz, Esq., Montstream May.
This Petition for Review from the February 11, 1988 Order Ruling on Claimant’s Motion to Preclude of the Commissioner for the Seventh District was heard April 28, 1989 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Gerald Kolinsky and A. Thomas White, Jr.
OPINION
JOHN ARCUDI, CHAIRMAN.
The seventh district granted claimant’s Motion to Preclude in its February 11, 1988 Order. Claimant’s counsel had sent two certified mail notices of claim, the first on June 29, 1987 and the second on September 22, 1987. Respondent’s failed to file a disclaimer within twenty days of the first June 29 notice. The respondent employer on September 11 did send a letter via regular mail to claimant’s counsel which stated “Your facts concerning your claimant, Jose Lopez, are not correctly stated.” On December 9, 1987, more than twenty days after the September 11 notice, respondents’ counsel sent a certified mail disclaimer to claimant; this last certified mail communication was returned unclaimed. However, on December 10, 1987 claimant’s attorney did receive a disclaimer via certified mail from the respondents’ counsel. The commissioner’s preclusion order was based on the second, the September 11, 1987, notice of claim. He found that no denial of claim pursuant to Sec. 31-297(b) and Sec. 31-321 was sent in response to that September 11, 1987 notice.
The commissioner’s conclusion was correct as no disclaimer had been properly filed by respondents. However, the September 11, 1987 letter from the employer, Schedule A, attached to the commissioner’s order raises an issue as to whether claimant was ever in an employment status with the employer respondent. Castro v. Viera, 207 Conn. 420 (1988) mandates that when a jurisdictional fact such as employment status is questioned, then that issue must first be decided before any action can be taken on the Sec. 31-297(b) question. That was not done here.
Therefore we must remand the matter for determination of jurisdiction. If jurisdiction is found, then the commissioner may act on the motion to preclude.
The appeal is sustained, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Commissioners Gerald Kolinsky and A. Thomas White, Jr. concur.