CASE NO. 688 CRD-1-88-1Workers’ Compensation Commission
AUGUST 28, 1989
The claimant was represented by John P. Clifford, Esq., Gersten Clifford.
The respondent was represented by Richard M. Leibert, Esq., Hunt Leibert.
This Petition for Review from the January 4, 1988 Memorandum Denying a Motion to Preclude of the Commissioner at Large acting for the First District was heard April 28, 1989 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Gerald Kolinsky and A. Thomas White, Jr.
OPINION
JOHN ARCUDI CHAIRMAN.
This appeal concerns the trial commissioner’s denial of a Motion to Preclude under Sec. 31-297(b). While the January 4, 1988 Memorandum found that no timely disclaimer of liability was filed by the respondent, also concluded claimant’s notice of claim “did not contain the Claimant’s address as required by Sec. 31-294.”
The Notice of Claim was filed April 23, 1987 and provided the following:
NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION
To: Dennis G. Miller d/b/a Rainbow Roofing and Siding 415 Brewer Street East Hartford, CT
Notice is hereby given that the undersigned, who while in the employ of Dennis G. Miller d/b/a Rainbow Roofing and Siding with offices located at 415 Brewer Street, East Hartford, sustained injuries at 73 Cottage Street in Manchester, CT on the 23rd day of March, 1987, which injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment as follows:
Brian Robinson was engaged in a roofing job while the employment of Rainbow Roofing Siding when he fell from scaffolding resulting in spinal cord injuries, a broken neck, and other injuries requiring emergency brain surgery and other treatment at the Hartford Hospital where he is hospitalized. Brian Robinson claims compensation benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act of the State of Connecticut.
Dated at Hartford, CT this 22nd day of April, 1987.
Brian D. Robinson By John P. Clifford, Jr. OF GERSTEN CLIFFORD 234 Pearl Street Hartford, CT 06103 Juris No.: 304302 His Attorney
cc: Paul Berte 255 Main Street 2nd Floor Hartford, CT 06106
On review we must consider whether claimant’s notice of claim satisfied the requirements of Sec. 31-294 C.G.S. and Sec. 31-297(b) specifically that part of Sec. 31-294 necessitating that the notice of claim provide “the name and address of the employee and of the person in whose interest compensation is claimed.”
Claimant contends the notice of claim did provide the address of the claimant by stating “Brian Robinson. . .fell from scaffolding resulting in spinal cord injuries, a broken neck, and other injuries requiring emergency brain surgery and other treatment at the Hartford Hospital where he is hospitalized. (Emphasis ours.) In order to judge that contention we need to analyze the statutory language. Under Sec. 1-1 C.G.S. words in the statutes must be construed according to commonly approved usage. Courts have held such usage denotes “common understanding [as] expressed in the law and in dictionaries.” Doe v. Manson, 183 Conn. 183, 186 (1981). (Citation omitted.) Black’s Law Dictionary defines address as “Place where mail or other communications will reach person. . . . Generally a place of business or residence.” Black’s Law Dictionary 36 (5th ed. 1979).
We think here the notice of claim designated a place where mail or other communications could reach the claimant. While the notice of claim may not have expressed an address in the traditional manner it did provide the respondents with a place where communications would reach the claimant as he was then hospitalized in the hospital with serious cervical and spinal cord injuries. In addition it also gave the address of his lawyer. Further “an `address’ is not domicile, and a person may have simultaneously two or more residence addresses but only one domicile at any one time.” Taylor v. Taylor, 168 Conn. 619, 621 (1975).
On a procedural note respondents have objected to claimant’s submission of exhibits which were not part of the formal record below. We have not considered these exhibits in our opinion.
We therefore sustain the appeal, grant claimant’s Motion to Preclude and remand to the district for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Commissioners Gerald Kolinsky and A. Thomas White, Jr. concur.