CHASE v. STATE/DEPT. OF MOTOR VEHICLES, 1305 CRD-2-91-9 (9-1-92)


MARVIN CHASE, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT/DEPT. OF MOTOR VEHICLES, EMPLOYER

CASE NO. 1305 CRD-2-91-9Workers’ Compensation Commission
SEPTEMBER 1, 1992

The claimant was represented by Brian Prucker, Esq., Asselin and Associates.

The respondent was represented by Gerard Rucci, Esq., and Loida John, Esq., Assistant Attorneys General.

This Petition for Review from the September 13, 1991 Ruling on Motion to Preclude of the Commissioner for the Second District was heard March 13, 1992 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the then Commission Chairman, John Arcudi and Commissioners Frank Verrilli and Donald Doyle.

OPINION

JOHN ARCUDI, COMMISSIONER.

Claimant has appealed the Second District’s denial of his Motion to Preclude defenses. He sought benefits for a back injury which occurred while he was working as a motor vehicle inspector for the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles.

On July 26, 1989 he sent a notice of claim, certified mail return receipt requested to the Second District and the Department of Motor Vehicles. This was received July 28, 1989 at both locations. Respondent did not file a disclaimer until September 1, 1989, beyond the twenty day statutory period then provided in Sec. 31-297(b) C.G.S.

Claimant’s notice was addressed “To the Department of Motor Vehicles of 60 State Street, Wethersfield, Ct 06109”. Nowhere did the notice identify the employer as “State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles.” The commissioner therefore denied the preclusion based on our ruling in Pereira v. State of Connecticut, 9 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 9, 906 CRD-7-89-8
(1991). We affirm the denial.

Pereira held that a notice of claim which “identified the employer as `Dept. of Children and Youth Services’ and failed to add `State of Connecticut’ to the designation” did not strictly comply with the technical requirements of Sec. 31-294 C.G.S. and was therefore insufficient to trigger the preclusive effects of Sec. 31-297(b). Id. at 9. The facts in the present case are virtually indistinguishable from those in Pereira.

We affirm the Second District and dismiss the instant appeal.

Commissioners Frank Verrilli and Donald Doyle concur.