CASE NO. 605 CRD-3-87Workers’ Compensation Commission
JULY 12, 1989
The claimant was represented by Richard Jacobs, Esq., Jacobs, Votre
Jacobs.
The respondents were represented by Serge Mihaly, Esq., and Bruce Levin, Esq. Mihaly and Mihaly.
This Petition for Review from the June 17, 1987 Ruling on a Motion to Preclude of the Commissioner At Large acting for the Third District was heard January 27, 1989 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Andrew Denuzze and Frank Verrilli.
OPINION
JOHN ARCUDI, CHAIRMAN.
Respondents appeal the June 17, 1987 Commissioner at Large Ruling granting Motion to Preclude. They argue that the claimant’s Form 30-C Notice of Claim failed to conform to the technical requirements of sec. 31-294: (2) the employment relationship was not established: (3) the Form 30-C notice was insufficient for constitutional due process as it failed to inform respondents that failure to file specific defenses within twenty days would subject them to preclusion of defenses under sec. 31-297(b).
Our ruling on the first issue makes it unnecessary to consider the others. Claimant’s Form 30-C was not in compliance with the technical requirements of sec. 31-294. We held in Fuller v. Central Paving, Zempel v. University of Hartford, Mottoshiskie v. Stamford Iron Steel, 5 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 92, 655 CRD-1-87, 592 CRD-1-87, 665 CRD-7-87 (1988) that in order for the preclusive effects of sec. 31-297(b) to prevail the claimant’s notice must comply with the precise technical requirements of sec. 31-294.
In the instant case the Form 30-C listed the employer’s name, “Banner State Rail, a/k/a Banner Fabricators, Inc. of Route 139, Branford, Connecticut 06405.” There apparently were two distinct companies, State Rail and Fabricating, Inc., and Banner Fabricators, Inc. Further, the street address for Banner Fabricators, Inc. was Route 139 or 225 Branford Road, North Branford, CT. (TR. June 10, 1986, 89-91). Clearly claimant’s identification of the employer’s name and the town in which it was located was inaccurate. In an analogous case this tribunal held, Sallvaggio v. Candlewood Valley Bus Co., 731 CRD-7-88-5 (May 1, 1989), that claimant’s failure accurately to identify the employer rendered the notice of claim insufficient to meet the technical requirements of sec. 31-294 and sec. 31-297(b). In this case the name of the employer appearing on the 30C did not accurately identify the employer and the address given for the employer was incorrect. It listed the wrong town.
We, therefore, conclude that the ruling granting the claimant’s Motion to Preclude was error. However, claimant may still pursue his claim by more traditional methods of proof.
The appeal is sustained and the matter is remanded to the Third District for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Commissioners Andrew Denuzze and Frank Verrilli concur.