CASE NO. 5144 CRB-1-06-10 CLAIM NO. 100000576CONNECTICUT COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD CONNECTICUT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DECEMBER 7, 2007
RULING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
JOHN A. MASTROPIETRO, CHAIRMAN.
On November 13, 2007 the respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of our October 15, 2007 opinion pursuant to Practice Book Section 71-5. The gravamen of the respondent’s motion is that our opinion did not properly apply the precedent in Bailey v. State, 4744 CRB-1-03-10
(December 3, 2004) (Bailey IV) regarding the claimant’s obligation to submit to an Employer/Respondent’s Medical Examination. For the following reasons we deny this motion.
Our review of the circumstances herein indicates the respondent’s Motion to be untimely under the terms of Chapter 568 and the Connecticut Practice Book. The Practice Book section which authorizes the filing and consideration of a Motion to Reconsider states “it will not be entertained unless filed with the appellate clerk . . . within ten days from the date when the decision or any order being challenged is officially released.” Practice Book Section 71-5. It is indisputable that this motion for relief was filed more than ten days following the release of our opinion in Bailey v. State 5144 CRB-1-06-10 (October 15, 2007) (Bailey V). Therefore, we do not believe we have the authority to act on this request.
Further support for this conclusion can be found in the statutes governing appeals from this Board. Section 31-301a C.G.S states that, “Any decision of the Compensation Review Board, in the absence of an appeal therefrom, shall become final after a period of twenty days has expired from the issuance of notice of the rendition of the judgment or decision.” More than twenty days elapsed between the issuance of the opinion in Bailey V and the filing of the subject motion.
As a result, we believe our decision in Bailey V has become final as a matter of law and we cannot entertain a challenge to our decision at this junction. Even if we were able to proceed, however, we would deny this motion on the merits. In our decision in Bailey V we determined the necessary factual findings to justify dismissal with prejudice did not appear in the record to comport with the requisite standards delineated for such relief in Pietraroia v. Northeast Utilities, 254 Conn. 60
(2000) and Millbrook Owners Assn. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1
The respondent suggests as an alternative that if this Board did not reinstate the trial commissioner’s original dismissal order that this Board should order this matter remanded for a new evidentiary hearing consistent with the standards in Pietraroia and Millbrook Owners. We do not believe such a remand order is appropriate or necessary. InBailey V we remanded the matter for “further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” We believe the respondent can obtain the same relief as they seek in the instant motion were they to reinstitute their pending discovery requests and fail to resolve their
dispute with the claimant. At such a time, they may request an evidentiary hearing before the trial commissioner on the merits of dismissing the claim with prejudice.
The Motion is therefore denied.
Commissioners Amado J. Vargas and Scott A. Barton concur.