Notice was in fact sent to the Fund on June 19, 1986. The claimant had taken a leave of absence eight months after her knee injury, and had opted for disability retirement eight months subsequent to that. She had not claimed that either of these decisions was related to her knee injury. Thus, the employer had no way of knowing that the claimant ascribed any disability whatsoever to her knee injury . . . 13 Conn. Workers' Comp.
Reason strongly suggests that, until a claim is filed, no case is in fact pending.
In Marano , no compensation claim of any kind had been filed, nor was the employer aware that the claimant was being treated for her workplace knee injury. A similar fact pattern prevailed in Jaworski , where the claimant had waited almost two years after her knee injury to assert a claim for compensation. Characterizing as dicta the Vaillancourt footnote regarding impossibility, the dissent stressed the importance of protecting the Fund's ability to quickly ascertain its liability for transferable injuries, establish its financial reserves, and maintain a reasonable amount of time within which to investigate and defend claims for transfer. Like the employers in Jaworski and Marano , the employer here did not file notice of its transfer claim with the Fund until after the lapsing of the ninetieth day prior to the one hundred fourth week of the claimant's disability. As we answer the first question in the negative, we need not address the timeliness of this notice relative to the dates of Dr. Kramer's 1992 and 1993 medical reports.