138 Conn. App. 826
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation sent a form 43 (Dec 4, 2007) contesting Lamar's claim; Lamar did not claim the form.
- Form 43 listed September 6, 2007 as the injury date, lymph nodes, sarcoidosis; stated the reason to contest as no employment-related injury.
- Lamar filed form 30C (Dec 10, 2007) alleging repetitive trauma; date range Jan 1, 2005 to present; lungs/respiratory involved.
- A second form 43 was filed (Feb 6, 2008) with same contested theory and injury dates.
- Commissioner denied Lamar’s motion to preclude; held service by certified mail satisfied § 31-321 and that notice was sufficient to apprise Lamar of the defense.
- Board affirmed; concluded the initial form 43 sufficiently informed Lamar of the contested grounds, and preclusion was not warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valid service of form 43 under § 31-321? | Lamar contends service was improper due to failure to claim notice; seeks preclusion. | Certified mail suffices under § 31-321 as one of three approved service methods. | Service by certified mail satisfied § 31-321; no further action required. |
| Sufficiency of the grounds stated in form 43? | Form 43 offers only a general denial without specific grounds; prejudicial to Lamar. | Form 43 clearly contests liability by asserting the injury did not arise out of or in course of employment. | Form 43 satisfied specificity requirements; not a prejudicial or improper general denial. |
| Does the date listed in form 43 align with a repetitive-trauma claim? | A single date (Sept 6, 2007) cannot reflect a repetitive-trauma claim. | Date fell within Lamar's claimed period (Jan 1, 2005–present); notice adequate. | Date within the claimed period supports sufficiency; Russell distinguished as inapplicable. |
| Preclusion warranted where initial form 43 precedes form 30C? | Preclusion should apply due to procedural defects. | Prompt investigation and specific grounds negate prejudice; preclusion not warranted. | No preclusion; initial form 43 adequately informed and timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pereira v. State, 228 Conn. 535 (1994) (disclaimer sufficiently apprised ground: arising out of and in the course of employment)
- Menzies v. Fisher, 166 Conn. 338 (1973) (necessity of specifying grounds for contest; avoid general denial)
- Wilcox v. Naugatuck, 16 Conn. App. 676 (1988) (illustrates insufficiency of vague disclaimers)
- Tovish v. Gerber Electronics, 19 Conn. App. 273 (1989) (outlines five elements and sufficiency to contest under act)
- Russell v. Mystic Seaport Museum, Inc., 252 Conn. 596 (2000) (repetitive trauma injury; timing of injury concept)
- Callender v. Reflexite Corp., 137 Conn. App. 324 (2012) (preclusion mechanics and role of employer in merits stage)