Yuknat v. State
Opinion
The primary issue of this appeal is whether the workers’ compensation review board was correct in affirming the decision of the compensation commissioner granting the plaintiff’s motion to preclude defenses. The plaintiff is the wife of a deceased employee of the defendant. The commissioner found that the plaintiff had given proper notice of her claim pursuant to General Statutes § 31-294.1 Although the defendant claims that the notice given by the plaintiff was insufficient, a review of the documents and the letters sent by the plaintiff to the defendant and the com[426] missioner indicates that adequate statutory notice was given. The defendant failed to file a notice to contest the claim of the plaintiff within twenty days as required by General Statutes § 31-297 (b).2 The defendant has appealed from the decision of the board.
Since the defendant did not comply with General Statutes § 31-297 (b), compensability of the claim was conceded. LaVogue v. Cincinnati, Inc., 9 Conn. App. 91, 93, 516 A.2d (1986); Bush v. Quality Bakers of America, 2 Conn. App. 363, 372-74, 479 A.2d 820, cert. denied, 194 Conn. 804, 482 A.2d 709 (1984). The plaintiffs motion to preclude defenses was, therefore, properly granted.
There is no error.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
519 A.2d 622 (Yuknat v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.