If an employer and his injured employee, or his legal representative, as the case may be, fail to reach an agreement in regard to compensation under the provisions of this chapter, either party may notify the administrative law judge of the failure. Upon such notice, or upon the knowledge that an agreement has not been reached in a case in which a right to compensation may exist, the administrative law judge shall schedule an early hearing upon the matter, giving both parties notice of time and place not less than ten days prior to the scheduled date; provided the administrative law judge may, on finding an emergency to exist, give such notice as he finds reasonable under the circumstances. If no agreement has been reached within sixty days after the date notice of claim for compensation was received by the administrative law judge, as provided in section
31-294c, a formal hearing shall be scheduled on the claim and held within thirty days after the end of the sixty-day period, except that if an earlier hearing date has previously been scheduled, the earlier date shall prevail. Hearings shall be held, if practicable, in the town in which the injured employee resides; or, if it is not practicable to hold a hearing in the town, in any other convenient place that the administrative law judge may prescribe. Sufficient notice of the hearing may be given to the parties in interest by a brief written statement in ordinary terms of the date, place and nature of the injury upon which the claim for compensation is based.
(1949 Rev., S. 7446; 1958 Rev., S. 31-173; 1961, P.A. 491, S. 19; 1967, P.A. 842, S. 7; P.A. 83-123; P.A. 89-31; P.A. 90-116, S. 9; P.A. 91-32, S. 16, 41; P.A. 21-18, S. 1.)
History: 1961 act entirely replaced previous provisions; 1967 act divided section into Subsecs., required filing of notice on or before twentieth day after receipt of written notice of claim rather than after “knowledge of alleged injury or death” and specified that employer's failure to file notice contesting liability results in presumption of his acceptance of liability; P.A. 83-123 required that, if no voluntary agreement has been reached within 60 days of the filing of a notice of claim for compensation, a formal hearing on the claim shall be scheduled and held within 30 days of the end of the 60-day period, unless a prior hearing date was previously established; P.A. 89-31 added Subsec. (c), providing a 28-day period for an employer to give notice that he contests a claim for injuries sustained on or after October 1, 1989; P.A. 90-116 provided that the employer's failure to contest shall not constitute a conclusive presumption when the notice has not been properly served or when the notice fails to include a warning concerning the time period to contest liability; P.A. 91-32 made technical changes and deleted Subsecs. (b) and (c) re filing of notice that claim is contested; pursuant to P.A. 21-18, “commissioner” was changed editorially by the Revisors to “administrative law judge”, effective October 1, 2021.
10 days' notice does not apply to hearing on motion for extension of time. 109 C. 469. Cited. 159 C. 302. The giving of notice by employer as to the specific grounds on which the right to compensation is contested is a condition precedent to defense of the action. 165 C. 338, 348. Cited. 177 C. 107; 227 C. 333; 239 C. 408.
Cited. 2 CA 365; 13 CA 208; 29 CA 441; 30 CA 320; 40 CA 278.
Cited. 38 CS 331; 39 CS 403.
Subsec. (b):
Applies only to contests of initial liability to pay compensation, not to contests of extent of disability, in requiring filing of a specific defense. 177 C. 107. Inquiry on existence of subject matter jurisdiction proper. 207 C. 420. Preclusion available to one claimant establishes compensability as to all eligible claimants. Id., 665. Cited. 213 C. 54; 218 C. 181; 222 C. 62; 228 C. 535.
Held to be constitutional under both state and federal constitutions. 2 CA 363. Cited. Id., 162; 9 CA 91; Id., 425. Timely filing of a notice of claim under Sec. 31-294 is a precondition to statutory preclusion from contesting liability under this section. 13 CA 276. Cited. 16 CA 676; 19 CA 273; 21 CA 63; Id., 610; 22 CA 515; 25 CA 350. Amendment not to be applied retroactively; date of injury rule applies. 29 CA 441. Amendment applied only prospectively. Id., 654. Cited 30 CA 295; 33 CA 495; 42 CA 147; 45 CA 499. Does not expressly provide for notice to claimants who are not employees or dependents; notice to last-known address of decedent employee, which was also claimants' address, was adequate. 63 CA 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
61
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2021 · leading case:
Castro v. Viera, 541 A.2d 1216 (Conn. 1988).
Castro v. Viera, 541 A.2d 1216 (Conn. 1988).
· cites it 39× “The workers’ compensation commissioner (commissioner) for the first district dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim for benefits after he denied the plaintiffs’ motion to preclude 1 the defendants from *422 “contesting liability” because the defendants failed to file a “Notice of…”
Adzima v. UAC/Norden Div., 411 A.2d 924 (Conn. 1979).
· cites it 44× “On April 21, 1975, the plaintiff filed with the commissioner a motion to preclude the defendants from contesting her claim, asserting that the employer failed to notify the commissioner of the specific grounds on which the right of compensation was contested, as required by…”
Harpaz v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., 942 A.2d 396 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 16× “See General Statutes § 31-297. There is no evidence in the legislative history to § 31-294c that the hearing requirements under § 31-297, which predate the conclusive presumption; see Public Acts 1961, No.”
Walter v. State, 774 A.2d 1052 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 19× “The legislature did not provide any form of penalty for the failure to send such notice to the claimant, but limited the invocation of preclusion to the failure to file notice contesting liability with the commission.”
Dealmeida v. M.C.M. Stamping Corp., 615 A.2d 1066 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 21× “ew division incorrectly (1) affirmed the finding and award when the commissioner failed to hold an evidentiary hearing to require the plaintiff to establish the causation of the plaintiff’s injuries and (2) affirmed the commis *443 sioner’s denial of the defendants’ motion to…”
Bush v. Quality Bakers of Am., 479 A.2d 820 (Conn. App. Ct. 1984).
· cites it 21× “In this workers’ compensation case, these combined appeals raise questions concerning the constitutionality of the conclusive presumption of General Statutes § 31-297 (b) and the subject matter jurisdiction of the workers’ compensation district commissioner.”
Dubois v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 607 A.2d 431 (Conn. 1992).
· cites it 14× “The defendant has appealed the review division’s decision, claiming that it improperly: (1) concluded that the notice of claim given in the present case satisfied the address requirements of General Statutes § 31-294; 1 and (2) failed to apply General Statutes § 31-297 (b), as…”
Menzies v. Fisher, 334 A.2d 452 (Conn. 1973).
· cites it 22× “I We first consider the plaintiff's claim that the commissioner erred in refusing to grant her "Motion to Preclude" the defendant from contesting compensability, pursuant to § 31-297 (b) of the General Statutes. That section provides: "Whenever liability to pay compensation is…”
Pereira v. State, 637 A.2d 392 (Conn. 1994).
· cites it 13× “to 1989) § 31-297 (b), 1 thus allowing the defendant to challenge the plaintiff’s claim on the merits.”
Cleveland v. U.S. Printing Ink, Inc., 588 A.2d 194 (Conn. 1991).
· cites it 7× “After the named defendant failed to file a timely notice of its intent to contest liability for the plaintiff’s claim, the plaintiff filed a motion, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-297 (b), 2 to preclude the *183 defendants from contesting liability or the extent of the…”
Ash v. Town of New Milford, 541 A.2d 1233 (Conn. 1988).
· cites it 14× “She claimed that she was the presumptive dependent spouse of the decedent and was entitled to benefits pursuant to § 7-433c, and that the town was precluded from contesting liability or the extent of disability by virtue of General Statutes § 31-297 (b). 2 *669 Written notice of…”
Vachon v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 617 A.2d 476 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 16× “On appeal, the defendant asserts that the review division improperly (1) held that General Statutes § 31-297 (b) 1 requires actual receipt of a notice of contest by the plaintiff as well as by the commissioner within the period allowed under § 31-297 (b), and (2) held that the…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-297(b) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.