Court Rulings

The defendant employer and its workers' compensation insurer appealed to this court from the decision of the Compensation Review Board, which affirmed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commis- sioner granting the plaintiff employee's motion to preclude the defen- dants from contesting the compensability of his injuries pursuant to statute (§ 31-294c (b)). The defendants received the plaintiff's notice of claim for compensation but did not file any response until eighteen months later, when they filed a form 43 in which they contested liability for his injuries. The commissioner found that the plaintiff properly filed his notice of claim and that the defendants had not paid him for any of his lost time from work or for any of his medical treatment related to his claim for compensation. The defendants appealed to the board, claiming that the exception to the preclusion provision in § 31-294c (b) recognized in Dubrosky v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp. (145 Conn. App. 261) was applicable because the plaintiff's failure to present a claim for medical or indemnity benefits within the twenty-eight day time period mandated by § 31-294c (b) made it impossible for the defendants to avail themselves of the one year safe harbor provision of § 31-294c (b), which permits an employer to contest the employee's right to receive compensation on any grounds or the extent of the employee's disability when the employer has failed to contest liability for the plaintiff's injuries within the twenty-eight day time period but commences payment within the twenty-eight day time period. The board rejected the defendants' claim that the exception recognized in Dubrosky was applicable and affirmed the commissioner's decision. Held that the board properly determined that the defendants were precluded from contesting their liability for the plaintiff's injuries; the defendants did not accept liability for the plaintiff's injuries, they belatedly filed a form 43 in which they denied liability,

Order - this case is REMANDED to the District Court for determination of attorney fees Lincoln's previously filed notice of appeal will be treated as filed on the date the District Court enters its order.

The Defendant, Catherine Ann Pinhal, was convicted upon her 2019 guilty pleas of vehicular homicide by reckless conduct, a Class C felony, and two counts of possession of contraband in a penal facility, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-213 (2019) (vehicular homicide) 39-16-201 (2019) (possession of contraband). The length and manner of service of her sentence were reserved for the trial court's determination. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed six years for the vehicular homicide conviction and four years for each possession of contraband in a penal facility conviction. The court, likewise imposed partial consecutive service, for an effective ten-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying her request for alternative sentencing and by imposing consecutive service. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant employer and its workers' compensation insurer appealed to this court from the decision of the Compensation Review Board, which affirmed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commis- sioner granting the plaintiff employee's motion to preclude the defen- dants from contesting the compensability of his injuries pursuant to statute (§ 31-294c (b)). The defendants received the plaintiff's notice of claim for compensation but did not file any response until eighteen months later, when they filed a form 43 in which they contested liability for his injuries. The commissioner found that the plaintiff properly filed his notice of claim and that the defendants had not paid him for any of his lost time from work or for any of his medical treatment related to his claim for compensation. The defendants appealed to the board, claiming that the exception to the preclusion provision in § 31-294c (b) recognized in Dubrosky v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp. (145 Conn. App. 261) was applicable because the plaintiff's failure to present a claim for medical or indemnity benefits within the twenty-eight day time period mandated by § 31-294c (b) made it impossible for the defendants to avail themselves of the one year safe harbor provision of § 31-294c (b), which permits an employer to contest the employee's right to receive compensation on any grounds or the extent of the employee's disability when the employer has failed to contest liability for the plaintiff's injuries within the twenty-eight day time period but commences payment within the twenty-eight day time period. The board rejected the defendants' claim that the exception recognized in Dubrosky was applicable and affirmed the commissioner's decision. Held that the board properly determined that the defendants were precluded from contesting their liability for the plaintiff's injuries; the defendants did not accept liability for the plaintiff's injuries, they belatedly filed a form 43 in which they denied liability,