CASE NO. 1159 CRD-5-91-1Workers’ Compensation Commission
FEBRUARY 19, 1992
The claimant was represented by Edward T. Dodd, Jr., Esq. and Charles S. Senich, Esq.
The respondents were represented by G. Randall Avery, Esq., Avery Crone.
This Petition for Review from the December 28, 1990 Memorandum of the Commissioner for the Fifth District was heard August 16, 1991 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi and Commissioners Andrew Denuzze and Gerald Kolinsky.
OPINION
JOHN ARCUDI, CHAIRMAN.
Respondents’ appeal the Fifth District December 28, 1990 ruling granting claimant’s motion precluding defenses and establishing an irrebuttable presumption of compensability under Sec. 31-297(b). Claimant’s certified mail Notice of Claim was filed with the employer and in the Fifth. District on May 21, 1990 pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 31-294. In response the respondents filed a disclaimer of liability by certified mail addressed to the trial commissioner, Darius Spain, Commissioner Fifth District, 1890 Dixwell Ave., Hamden, CT 06514. The usual office address of the commissioner for the Fifth District is 451 Bank Street, Waterbury, CT 06708. The office to which the Notice to Contest was sent was the office of the Workers’ Compensation Commission Chairman.
The trial commissioner concluded that the respondent had not complied with Sec. 31-297(b) as the address to which the disclaimer was sent was the Chairman’s office and not the Fifth District office and therefore granted the Motion to Preclude.
Section 31-297(b) provides in pertinent part:
“[W]henever liability to pay compensation is contested by the employer, he shall file with the compensation commissioner . . . a notice in accord with a form prescribed by the commissioners stating that the right to compensation is contested. . . .”
The trial commissioners Memorandum relied on both Sec. 31-297(b) and Sec. 31-278. It stated the following. “Section 31-278
establishes jurisdiction with the commissioner of the district in which the claimed injury was incurred. There are some exceptions, but none that affect this claim.”
In essence the commissioner’s ruling interpreted Sec. 31-297(b) to require that the Notice to Contest be filed with him at the address of the district office where he presided. However this is a construction of Sec. 31-297(b) which is far too narrow. In this case Respondents’ Exhibit A shows the Notice to Contest was addressed to “Darius Spain Commissioner Fifth District.” Sending the document to the 1890 Dixwell Ave., Hamden, CT, Workers’ Compensation Office did not constitute a failure to comply with Sec. 31-297(b) as a matter of law. It was a place where mail addressed to Commissioner Spain, Fifth District Commissioner could reasonably be thought to reach him.
At the time that this disclaimer was sent Sec. 31-280(a) discussing the chairman’s position stated: “The duties of the chairman shall be administrative in nature. Said chairman may, at his discretion, hear any matter.” Commissioner Spain before becoming the Fifth District Commissioner upon the death in 1989 the person previously holding that position had been a Commissioner at Large assigned to the chairman’s office. Because that fact and because Sec. 31-280 essentially gave the chairman statewide jurisdiction not withstanding the jurisdiction the district commissioners, a disclaimer addressed to Commissioner Spain at the chairman’s office should have been treated as validly filed within the time deadlines.
Menzies v. Fisher, 165 Conn. 338, 343 (1973) noted:
The object which the legislature sought to accomplish is plain, Sec. 31-297(b) was amended to ensure (1)that employers would bear the burden of investigating a claim promptly and (2)that employees would be timely apprised of the specific reasons for the denial of their claim.
In this case we do not see how the purpose of Sec. 31-297(b) as stated in Menzies was disserved by addressing the disclaimer to the proper commissioner at an address where mail directed to him might reasonably be thought to reach him, i.e. an administrative office of the Workers’ Compensation Commission. Cf. Robinson v. Miller, 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 69, 686 CRD-1-88-1
(1989)
We therefore reverse the Fifth District’s ruling granting claimant’s Motion to Preclude and sustain respondents’ appeal. The matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Commissioners Andrew Denuzze and Gerald Kolinsky concur.