217 Conn.App. 134
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- On December 12, 2017 Britto filed a Form 30C (notice of claim) with the Workers’ Compensation Commission and mailed a copy by certified mail to Bimbo Foods at its Stamford business address.
- The certified-mail envelope was returned to Britto on January 10, 2018, stamped "undeliverable as addressed," showing three attempted deliveries in December.
- On January 18, 2018 Britto’s counsel personally handed a copy of the Form 30C to Bimbo’s counsel; Bimbo filed a Form 43 (denial) the same day.
- Britto moved to preclude Bimbo from contesting liability under § 31-294c(b), arguing the certified mailing satisfied service and that the Form 43 was therefore untimely.
- The commissioner found the certified mailing was never delivered (relying in part on the returned envelope) and denied the motion; the Compensation Review Board affirmed.
- The Appellate Court affirmed, holding the commissioner’s factual findings (non-delivery and timely personal service on counsel) were supported by the record and rejecting Britto’s mailbox-rule argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether certified mailing of Form 30C established receipt and triggered the 28‑day contest period under § 31‑294c(b) | Britto: certified mail to employer’s business satisfied statutory service, so contest period began on mailing/delivery and Bimbo’s Form 43 (filed Jan 18) was untimely | Bimbo: certified mailing was not delivered (returned as undeliverable), so contest period began on actual receipt (Jan 18) when counsel was handed the Form 30C | Court held the commissioner reasonably found the certified mail was not delivered; contest period began on Jan 18 and Form 43 was timely |
| Whether the mailbox rule (presumption of delivery) rebuttably applies to presume receipt of certified mail | Britto: mailbox rule presumes properly mailed items are received; burden shifts to Bimbo to rebut | Bimbo: returned envelope and delivery attempts rebut presumption — no delivery occurred | Court: even assuming mailbox rule applies, the commissioner’s credited evidence (returned envelope marked "undeliverable") supports finding no delivery, so presumption was overcome |
| Whether the commissioner improperly discredited plaintiff’s postal expert testimony | Britto: retired postal worker’s testimony showed handling indicated delivery attempt and rejection | Bimbo: commissioner as factfinder could reject that testimony in favor of returned-envelope evidence and other testimony | Court: credibility and weight findings are for the commissioner; appellate court will not disturb those determinations |
| Whether the commissioner/board improperly shifted burden to Britto to prove Bimbo rejected the mail after delivery | Britto: once mailed properly, it was Bimbo’s burden to show nonreceipt | Bimbo: evidence indicated non-delivery; Britto offered no credited evidence of a refusal by Bimbo | Court: no burden shift occurred — without delivery there was nothing for Britto to prove; commissioner’s finding of non-delivery stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Black v. London & Egazarian Associates, Inc., 30 Conn. App. 295 (1993) (certified‑mail delivery treated as effective where postal worker delivered notice and employer’s employees prevented receipt)
- Echavarria v. National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 275 Conn. 408 (2005) (describes mailbox rule: properly mailed letter raises rebuttable presumption of receipt)
- Mehan v. Stamford, 127 Conn. App. 619 (2011) (discusses § 31‑294c notice requirements)
- Arrico v. Board of Education, 212 Conn. App. 1 (2022) (sets forth appellate standard of review for commissioner and board factual findings)
- DeJesus v. R.P.M. Enterprises, Inc., 204 Conn. App. 665 (2021) (reminds that Workers’ Compensation Act is remedial and should be construed broadly)