CASE NO. 1174 CRD-7-91-2Workers’ Compensation Commission
MAY 6, 1992
The claimant was represented by Peter C. Barrett, Esq., Mitro, Ketaineck Barrett, P.C.
The respondents were represented by Margaret E. Corrigan, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton Stabnick.
This Petition for Review from the undated Ruling on Motion to Preclude of the Commissioner At Large acting for the Seventh District was heard December 13, 1991 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi and Commissioners Frank J. Verrilli and George Waldron.
OPINION
JOHN ARCUDI, CHAIRMAN.
Claimant’s appeal is from the commissioner’s denial of his request to preclude defenses and grant an irrebuttable presumption of compensability under Sec. 31-297(b). The contention is that the employer did not send a sufficiently specific disclaimer of liability to claimant’s proper address within the twenty day time limit then prescribed by the statute.
The compensable injury claimant alleges occurred May 26, 1989. On June 8 his attorney filed a notice of claim, return receipt requested, with the employer and the commissioner. The commissioner found respondents sent a Form 43 — Notice of Intention to Contest Liability by certified mail addressed to the claimant at P.O. Box 93, South Kent, CT; the receipt for this mailing was signed by a C. Gannon, the live-in girlfriend of the claimant, on June 16, 1989. Claimant’s motor vehicle license lists his address as Post Office Box 93, South Kent, CT 06785. This Form 43 notice stated, “Claimant was on a personal trip to pick up a motorcycle. No employment relationships between trip and accident. Injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment.”
Subsequently on June 12 respondents mailed an identical notice of contest addressed to the claimant at 42 Lanesville Road, New Milford, CT 06776. On July 25 still another Form 43 was mailed giving as the grounds for contest “current investigation shows claimant was intoxicated at the time of accident. Warrant for DWI was served by New Milford Police Department. Section 31-284 precludes claimant from receiving Worker’s (sic) Comp. benefits.” That notice was also addressed to 38 Lanesville Rd., New Milford, CT 06776. The commissioner found the first disclaimer, i.e. the one addressed to P.O. Box 93, South Kent, CT, was timely and sufficiently specific. We agree. Our ruling therefore makes it unnecessary to consider the effect of the other disclaimers.
Claimant contends respondents should have addressed the disclaimer to his residence at 38 Lanesville Road, New Milford, CT in order to have complied with Sec. 31-321.
Section 31-321 provides: Unless otherwise specifically provided, or unless the circumstances of the case or the rules of the commission direct otherwise, any notice required under this chapter to be served upon an employer, employee or commissioner shall be by written or printed notice, service personally or by registered or certified mail addressed to the person upon whom it is to be served at his last-known residence or place of business. Notices in behalf of a minor shall be given by or to his parent or guardian or, if there is no parent or guardian, then by or to such minor.
To support his contention, claimant refers to that part of the statute stating: “any notice required under this chapter to be served upon an employer, employee or commissioner shall be by written or printed notice, service personally or by registered or certified mail addressed to the person upon whom it is to be served at his last-known residence or place of business.” (emphasis ours).
The emphasis, claimant argues, is on the word “residence” in the statute. His post office box is not his residence, he contends. Notices under Sec. 31-297(b) are to be served in accordance with Sec. 31-321. See e.g. Skorupski v. Commercial Insurance Co., 2 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 133, 338 CRD-3-84 (1985). When the injury alleged was due to a motor vehicle accident, it would indeed be a bizarre result if a notice mailed to the address appearing on claimant’s motor vehicle license was considered improper.
Menzies v. Fisher, 165 Conn. 338, 343 (1973) stated the purpose of Sec. 31-297(b) was “to ensure (1) that employers would bear the burden of investigating a claim promptly and (2) that the denial of their claim” (emphasis ours). Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1971 Ed., defines address as “the designation of a place (as a residence or place of business) where a person or organization may be found or communicated with.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 1979, defines address as the “Place where mail or other communications will reach person. (citations omitted) Generally a place of business or residence.” A person’s address is therefore the equivalent of his residence. The purpose of Sec. 31-297(b), as defined by Menzies, timely to apprise this employee of the specific reasons for the denial of the claim, was accomplished by mailing the notice to the address listed on the driver’s license.
We therefore affirm the commissioner’s ruling and dismiss the appeal.
Commissioners Frank J. Verrilli and George Waldron concur.