Dominguez v. New York Sports Club, 198 Conn.App. 854

Employee Joseph Dominguez filed a Form 30C (notice of claim) for an alleged work-related exacerbation on June 29, 2016; employer received it July 6, 2016.
Employer neither filed a Form 43 (notice contesting liability) nor commenced payment within the 28-day period required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-294c(b).
Seventy-five days after notice, the employer filed a late Form 43 denying compensability and stating no medical records or payment requests had been presented.
The commissioner granted the employee’s motion to preclude in part (accept injury but allow contesting extent) based on this court’s limited Dubrosky exception; the Compensation Review Board reversed in part and ordered the employer precluded from defending.
On appeal, the court held the employer was conclusively presumed to have accepted compensability because it did not timely contest or commence payment, placed the initial burden to commence payment on the employer, and declined to extend Dubrosky to employers who deny liability and made no payments.

Issue	Dominguez's Argument	New York Sports Club's Argument	Held
Whether employer is precluded from contesting extent of injury when it neither filed Form 43 nor commenced payment within 28 days	Because employee filed a proper Form 30C and employer gave no timely response, the § 31-294c(b) conclusive presumption bars the employer from contesting compensability or extent	Employer says it was impossible to "commence payment" within 28 days because employee didn’t submit medical bills or a separate payment request	Employer is precluded from contesting both compensability and extent; employer bore the initial burden to contest or commence payment within 28 days
Whether Dubrosky exception (excusing strict compliance when payment was impossible) should be extended to cases where employer denies liability and made no payments	Dubrosky is narrow and does not apply where employer contests liability and made no payments	Ask court to extend Dubrosky to cases where payment was "impossible" absent medical bills	Court refuses to extend Dubrosky; limited to cases where employer accepted liability and made payments
Who bears the initial burden to "commence payment" under § 31-294c(b)	Employer must notify claimant of intent to commence payments to preserve one-year safe-harbor rights	Employer contends claimant must furnish bills or requests before employer can commence payment	Court places initial burden on employer to either timely contest or timely commence payment

Harpaz v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., 286 Conn. 102 (2008) (explains § 31-294c(b) preclusion scheme and that failure to timely pay or contest triggers conclusive presumption)
Donahue v. Veridiem, Inc., 291 Conn. 537 (2009) (clarifies predicates for employer to challenge compensability and extent once preclusion is implicated)
Dubrosky v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp., 145 Conn. App. 261 (2013) (recognizes narrow exception where employer accepted injury and paid medical bills, making strict 28-day compliance impractical)
Menzies v. Fisher, 165 Conn. 338 (1973) (legislative history supporting employer’s duty to investigate promptly and respond)
McCullough v. Swan Engraving, Inc., 320 Conn. 299 (2016) (court will not judicially add notice requirements on claimants beyond statute)