Source: https://wcc.state.ct.us/crb/1997/3209crb.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:37:23+00:00

Document:
The respondents were represented by Kristie DiResta, Esq., Law Offices of Robert M. Brennan, 265 Church St., Suite 802, New Haven, CT 06510.
This Petition for Review from the October 18, 1995 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Third District was heard April 19, 1996 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Robin L. Wilson and Nancy A. Brouillet.
JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The pro se claimant has petitioned for review from the October 18, 1995 Finding and Dismissal of the Commissioner acting for the Third District. The petition for review was received by the Workers’ Compensation Commission on November 17, 1995. Section 31-301(a) allows a party ten days after the entry of a commissioner’s decision in which to appeal. The ten-day period begins to run “on the day on which the party wanting to appeal is sent meaningful notice of the commissioner’s decision.” Conaci v. Hartford Hospital, 36 Conn. App. 298, 303 (1994).
The claimant here did not file his petition for review until thirty days after the date on the commissioner’s decision. We have noted in the past that it is the regular practice of this Commission to send out notice of its decisions immediately. Vega v. Waltsco, Inc., 2078 CRB-2-94-6 (decided June 21, 1996). The claimant has made no allegation that notice was not sent to him or his attorney for the proceedings below in a timely fashion. Although we normally give some leniency to pro se claimants regarding the procedural rules of this Commission, this board simply does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal that is filed late. Freeman v. Hull Dye & Print, Inc., 39 Conn. App. 717, 721 (1995); Conaci, supra, 303. We also note that the claimant never filed Reasons of Appeal as required by Admin. Reg. § 31-301-2, or a Motion to Correct pursuant to § 31-301-4. Because the claimant challenges the factual findings of the trial commissioner, the latter motion would have been a necessary step in his appeal. See Bell v. U.S. Home Care Certified of Connecticut, 13 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 294, 295, 1792 CRB-1-93-8 (April 21, 1995). For all of these reasons, we dismiss the claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute with proper diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 4184A.
Commissioners Robin L. Wilson and Nancy A. Brouillet concur.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 31
 § 31
 v. 
 § 4184