From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lopez v. Peerless Aluminum Foundry

Workers' Compensation Commission
Oct 18, 1988
654 CRD 4 (Conn. Work Comp. 1988)

Opinion

CASE NO. 654 CRD-4-87

OCTOBER 18, 1988

The claimant was represented by Donald C. Cousins, Esq. and Albert E. Desrosiers, Esq., Cousins Johnson.

The respondents were represented by William C. Brown, Esq., McGann, Bartlett Brown.

This Petition for Review from the October 20, 1987 Memorandum granting Claimant's Motion to Preclude of the Commissioner at Large acting for the Fourth District was heard April 29, 1988 before a Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and Commissioners Frank Verrilli and A. Thomas White, Jr.


OPINION


Respondents have appealed the October 20, 1987 Ruling in which the trial Commissioner granted claimant's Motion to Preclude. Claimant had alleged a compensable injury occurred on December 5, 1986 in a notice of claim filed February 9, 1987. This claim notice complied with the procedural requirements of Sec. 31-321, C.G.S. On January 20, 1987 the respondents had filed by certified mail in the Fourth District office a Form 43, Notice to Compensation Commissioner and Employee of Intention to Contest Liability to Pay Compensation. The grounds of disclaimer stated, "No accident or occupational disease within the meaning of Sec. 31-275. No medical causation. No causal relationship between injury and employment. Accident reported as non-industrial by employee". A copy of this disclaimer was also sent to the claimant. On the form filed by the respondents the date of injury was listed as "12-5-86?". The date of knowledge of employer of injury was listed as "1-6-87 via letter from Dr. Nijensohn".

In the ruling granting claimant's Motion to Preclude, the trial Commissioner cited Skorupski v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 2 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 133, 338 CRD-3-84 (1985) and De La Torre v. State of Connecticut, 2 Conn. Workers' Comp. Rev. Op. 95, 148 CRD-1-82 (1984). Relying on his interpretation of these two cases, the Commissioner then held since the January 20, 1987 disclaimer was not in response to a notice of claim, it was a nullity.

We held otherwise in Elmassri v. Vinco, Inc., 584 CRD-7-87 (June 2, 1988). In that case the majority of the panel ruled "the employer's December 2, 1986 contestment sent before claimant's December 12, 1986 notice was properly filed to estop the Sec. 31-297(b) presumption".

In Elmassri we also found claimant's notice of claim failed to state claimant's street address. Following our reasoning in Fuller v. Central Paving Co., 655 CRD-1-87, Zempel v. University of Hartford, 592 CRD-1-87 and Mottoshiskie v. Stamford Iron Steel, 665 CRD-7-87 (June 2, 1988), we concluded that this defect in addition to the respondent's filing of a disclaimer prior to the notice of claim supported our conclusion that the claimant's Motion to Preclude should be denied.

The Elmassri holding is therefore dispositive of the issue raised here. The Motion to Preclude is denied. The appeal is sustained and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Commissioners Frank Verrilli and A. Thomas White, Jr. concur.


Summaries of

Lopez v. Peerless Aluminum Foundry

Workers' Compensation Commission
Oct 18, 1988
654 CRD 4 (Conn. Work Comp. 1988)
Case details for

Lopez v. Peerless Aluminum Foundry

Case Details

Full title:RAFAEL LOPEZ, CLAIMANT-APPELLEE vs. PEERLESS ALUMINUM FOUNDRY, EMPLOYER…

Court:Workers' Compensation Commission

Date published: Oct 18, 1988

Citations

654 CRD 4 (Conn. Work Comp. 1988)

Citing Cases

Rogers v. Electric Boat Division

Although the commissioner made no mention of it in his ruling, the employer had filed a disclaimer of…

Lamar v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp.

Although this issue is not before us, we note that one treatise has opined that “[a] proper Form 43 filed…