CASE NO. 373 CRD-2-85Workers’ Compensation Commission
JANUARY 29, 1986
The Claimant-Appellant appeared pro se.
The Respondent-Appellee, State of Connecticut, was represented by Michael Belzer, Esq., Assistant Attorney General.
This Petition for Review from the December 4, 1984 Corrected Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Second District was heard March 1, 1985 on a Motion To Dismiss Due To Lateness of Appeal by a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi and Commissioners Andrew Denuzze and Frank Verrilli.
DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
JOHN ARCUDI, Chairman.
In the instant matter a Finding and Dismissal of Claim was made by the Second District Commissioner November 28, 1984. Another decision entitled “Corrected Finding and Award” was issued December 4, 1984. This second document seemed identical with the first.
No appeal was filed from either document until December 27, 1984 in the Second District. That Petition for Review although date stamped as having been received December 27, 1984 had a handwritten date in the document itself of December 19, 1984.
Claimant filed that Petition for Review himself and has appeared pro se in the appeal proceedings. We note that December 19 is fifteen days after and December 27 is twenty-three days after the Corrected Finding and Award was issued. Claimant explained in oral argument the circumstances causing his appeal to be delayed more than ten days.
In fact, claimant seemed to have some arguably substantial reasons for the appeal’s lateness. However, the ten day deadline for the filing of an appeal is set by the statute, 31-301, Connecticut General Statutes; it also is repeated in the Administrative Regulations, 31-301-1, which themselves have the force of a Statute.
We have studied the matter very carefully, but we are forced to conclude that we are powerless to escape the statute’s command, Golob v. State of Conn., 4 CRD-2-79, 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 3 (1980), Ilewicz v. State of Conn., 10 CRD-2-80, 1 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 5 (1980).
We do understand there have been further proceedings in the District granting more benefits, including rehire by the Employer-Respondent, for subsequent weeks to the claimant. However, insofar as this particular appeal is concerned, it must be dismissed.
Commissioners Andrew Denuzze and Frank Verrilli concur.