Source: https://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1995/1767crb.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:43:49+00:00

Document:
The claimant was represented by Homer Scovill, Esq., 19 South Lee Road, Niantic, CT 06357.
The respondents were represented by Michael J. McAuliffe, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton & Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Blvd., Glastonbury, CT 06033-4412.
This Motion to Dismiss the Claimant’s Petition for Review from the June 2, 1993 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the First District was heard June 10, 1994 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Angelo L. dos Santos and Nancy A. Brouillet.
JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The claimant filed an untimely petition for review from the First District Commissioner’s June 2, 1993 Finding and Dismissal. To date, the claimant has failed to file his reasons for appeal, a brief, or a motion to correct.
The claimant’s petition for review was filed on June 25, 1993, approximately twenty-three days after the trial commissioner’s Finding and Dismissal was issued on June 2, 1993. The claimant’s petition for review was not filed within the time limit prescribed by §31-301(a), which states that “[a]t any time within ten days after entry of an award by the commissioner, . . . either party may appeal therefrom to the compensation review board by filing in the office of the commissioner . . . an appeal petition . . . .” We note that the respondents are entitled to raise this issue even after the prescribed time period contained in the Supreme Court rules because it implicates the subject matter jurisdiction of this Board over the claimant’s appeal. Johnston v. ARA Services Inc., 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 19, 20, 765 CRD-7-88-8 (June 29, 1989). The claimant has not contended that he received the commissioner’s decision in an untimely manner. We conclude that the claimant’s petition for review was not filed within the time limits required by §31-301(a) and we thus dismiss it as untimely.
Moreover, even if jurisdiction existed to consider the claimant’s appeal, we would dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book §4055. See Perkins v. Rudy Fogg & Son, 1697 CRB-2-93-4 (March 28, 1994); Divita v. Thames Valley Steel, 12 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 50, 1541 CRB-2-92-10 (January 26, 1994); Hargatai v. Copy Data, Inc., 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 106, 107, 1475 CRB-4-92-7 (June 2, 1993); Jones v. Middletown Mfg., 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 56, 57, 1296 CRD-8-91-9 (April 5, 1993).
The Motion to Dismiss is granted and the First District decision is affirmed.

References: §31
 v. 
 §31
 §4055
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.