349 Conn. 1
Conn.2024Background
- Plaintiff Ajredin Ajdini was injured during his employment at Frank Lill & Son, Inc. and properly filed workers’ compensation claims.
- The employer received the notice of these claims on May 3, 2019.
- Employer mailed, but did not timely file (deliver), a notice (Form 43) contesting the compensation claims within 28 days as required by Connecticut General Statutes § 31-294c(b).
- The administrative law judge received the notice after the statutory 28-day period had expired.
- Plaintiff moved to preclude the defendants from contesting compensability based on the late filing; the motion was granted.
- The Compensation Review Board affirmed, and the defendants appealed, arguing mailing equaled timely filing under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does mailing, rather than delivering, a contest notice within the statutory period satisfy § 31-294c(b)? | Filing requires actual delivery/receipt by the commission within 28 days; mailing alone is insufficient. | Mailing within 28 days equals filing; the mailbox rule should apply. | Filing means delivery/receipt; actual timely delivery to the commission is required. |
| Is the "mailbox rule" applicable to statutory filing deadlines in workers’ compensation cases? | The mailbox rule only applies when the statute requires notice, not when it requires filing. | The mailbox rule should apply to the filing requirement, making mailing sufficient. | The mailbox rule does not apply; timely receipt, not mailing, is determinative. |
| Did the legislature intend "file" and "send" to have different meanings in § 31-294c(b)? | The use of both terms means the legislature intended different standards for delivery: "file" = deliver; "send" = mail. | The statutory language supports that mailing (sending) is sufficient. | Legislature intentionally used different terms; "file" requires more than mailing. |
| Should the employer be precluded from contesting liability for late filing? | Yes, the law presumes compensability if the employer fails to file within the deadline. | No, since mailing occurred within the period, preclusion should not apply. | Yes, preclusion applies for failure to timely file by actual delivery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Russell v. Mystic Seaport Museum, Inc., 252 Conn. 596 (statute intended to address delays by employers/insurers in paying benefits)
- Echavarria v. National Grange Mutual Ins. Co., 275 Conn. 408 (explains mailbox rule does not assure timely receipt for statutory deadlines)
- Vitti v. Milford, 336 Conn. 654 (standard of review for agency interpretation of statutes)
- Felician Sisters of St. Francis of Connecticut, Inc. v. Historic District Commission, 284 Conn. 838 (legislature’s choice of terms implies intent for different meanings)
- Stafford v. Roadway, 312 Conn. 184 (legislative intent inferred from word choices in statute)