Source: https://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/2001/4372crb.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 20:14:53+00:00

Document:
The claimant has petitioned for review from the March 14, 2001 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Fourth District. In that Finding and Dismissal the trial commissioner dismissed the claimant’s claim regarding an alleged violation of § 31-290a C.G.S. which prohibits discrimination against claimants who pursue their rights under our Workers’ Compensation Act. Additionally, the trial commissioner found that there was no undue delay of payments on the part of the respondents, and thus denied the claimant’s request for interest and attorney’s fees.
This tribunal has repeatedly held that the Compensation Review Board lacks jurisdiction over appeals relating to § 31-290a, as that statute specifically provides: “Any party aggrieved by the decision of the commissioner may appeal the decision to the Appellate Court.” Rondini v. Tectonic Industries, 10 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 210, 1231 CRD-6-91-5 (Dec. 4, 1992); Morales v. Hydro Conduit Corp., 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 10, 2155 CRB-6-94-9 (Oct. 17, 1994); see also Erisoty v. Merrow Machine Co., 11 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 131, 1639 CRB-6-93-2 (June 25, 1993), aff’d, 34 Conn. App. 708 (1994), Motion for Reargument Denied (7/20/94), cert. denied, 231 Conn. 908 (1994). Accordingly, we must dismiss the claimant’s appeal insofar as it relates to the § 31-290a claim. However, as the claimant in her appeal has also alleged that the trial commissioner erred in denying her request for interest and attorney’s fees, which is a separate issue from the § 31-290a claim, we will schedule that portion of her appeal to be heard by this board.
In accordance with the above, the appeal is therefore dismissed as to the § 31-290a C.G.S. claim.

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