CASE NO. 218 CRD-4-83Workers’ Compensation Commission
NOVEMBER 28, 1986
The claimant was represented by Joseph Chiarelli, Esq.
Respondent-Appellant, Carl Stockwell was represented by Victor Fasano, Esq.
Respondent-Appellant, Karen Stockwell was represented by Irving H. Perlmutter, Esq.
Aetna Life and Casualty Company was represented by Paul E. Pollock, Esq.
Hartford Insurance Group was represented by Douglas L. Drayton, Esq.
Second Injury and Compensation Assurance Fund did not appear before the Compensation Review Division.
This Petition for Review from the March 15, 1983 Memorandum On Respondent’s Motion To Re-Open of the Commissioner At Large, Acting for the Fourth District, was heard June 29, 1984 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi and Commissioners A. Paul Berte and Robin Waller.
OPINION
JOHN ARCUDI, Chairman.
This matter concerns the respondent employers’ Appeal from the trial Commissioner’s March 15, 1983 Denial of a June 28, 1982 Motion to Reopen the March 24, 1982 Finding and Award. That Finding and Award had been entered after formal hearings in the Fourth District on February 11, 1981 and January 6, 1982. Before these formal hearings there had been at least three informal hearings scheduled.
The individual employer respondents Carl Stockwell and Karen Stockwell d/b/a B.C. Cable Contractors were uninsured and alleged as a basis for reopening that neither had received notice of the January 6, 1982 hearing. In his memorandum denying the Motion the Commissioner pointed out that Karen Stockwell had signed three return receipts for notices addressed to Carl or Karen Stockwell d/b/a B.C. Cable at 326 Garfield Avenue, Bridgeport. These receipts indicate notices of hearing delivered October 28, 1980, December 11, 1980 and February 11, 1981. One of these respondents was actually present at the informals of November 17, 1980 and January 27, 1981. The memorandum also recited that claimant’s attorney had apprised the respondents of the formal hearing by phone.
The Fourth District file shows that notices of the two formal hearings were mailed to these respondents although it does not appear whether these were sent by registered or certified mail. The Commissioner then concluded “that respondent was on notice and had such knowledge as would have led a reasonably prudent person to take some action to protect his interest.” We see nothing in the record which could lead us to a different conclusion.
It should also be noted that the Petition for Review was filed March 25, 1983. Under our Regulations Sec. 31-301-2 Reasons of Appeal should have been filed within ten days of that date unless an extension was granted. No motion for extension appears in the file, and No Reasons of Appeal were filed until May 22, 1984. Their failure to comply with our Regulation would by itself be a sufficient ground to dismiss this Appeal.
We affirm the Commissioner’s decision to deny the Motion to Reopen. The Appeal is dismissed.
Commissioners A. Paul Berte and Robin Waller concur.