168 Conn. App. 92
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Wiblyi filed a Form 30C notice of a September 8, 1999 work injury on June 28, 2000; McDonald’s filed Form 43 contesting liability on August 3, 2000 (after the 28‑day period in § 31‑294c(b)).
- Plaintiff moved to preclude the defendant from contesting liability on February 25, 2010, arguing the late Form 43 triggered the statutory conclusive presumption of compensability.
- Defendant amended its objection and asserted multiple defenses, including laches and prejudice from plaintiff’s nine‑plus year delay in filing the motion to preclude.
- The commissioner denied the motion to preclude, relying on laches and prejudice, and ordered the case to proceed on the merits.
- The Workers’ Compensation Review Board reversed, holding laches is not a permissible defense to a statutory motion to preclude under § 31‑294c(b); the Appellate Court affirmed the board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether laches is available as a defense to a motion to preclude under § 31‑294c(b) | Laches is inapplicable; the motion to preclude is statutory and must be decided by the statute’s terms | Laches bars the motion because plaintiff unreasonably delayed ~9.5 years and defendant was prejudiced | Laches is not available; statutory preclusion mechanism cannot be overridden by equitable laches |
| Whether commissioner erred by denying motion to preclude on laches grounds | Motion should have been granted because Form 43 was untimely | Commissioner correctly exercised equitable discretion to deny preclusion because of delay and prejudice | Commissioner erred as a matter of law by applying laches to a statutory remedy; board and Appellate Court affirmed reversal |
| Whether a time limit exists for filing a motion to preclude | No statutory time limit exists; courts should not create one | Delay justifies equitable relief and defense of laches | Court will not impose a judicial time limit; any limitation must come from legislature |
| Whether § 31‑298 (proceed in equity) imports equitable doctrines like laches into statutory scheme | Plaintiff: § 31‑298 governs hearing procedure only and does not import laches into statutory rights | Defendant: equitable nature of proceedings supports applying laches | § 31‑298 does not graft laches onto the statutory preclusion framework; it governs procedures, not substantive exceptions |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 317 Conn. 357 (2015) (laches does not apply to actions at law brought within statutory time periods)
- Leonetti v. MacDermid, Inc., 310 Conn. 195 (2013) (deference to commissioner’s statutory constructions and principle that act is remedial)
- McCullough v. Swan Engraving, Inc., 320 Conn. 299 (2016) (courts should not engraft statutory time limits or exceptions omitted by legislature)
- Callender v. Reflexite Corp., 137 Conn. App. 324 (2012) (two‑part inquiry for motions to preclude: adequacy of notice and employer noncompliance with § 31‑294c(b))
- Mehan v. Stamford, 127 Conn. App. 619 (2011) (§ 31‑294c(b) imposes strict standards and consequences for employer’s untimely contest of liability)