Melendez v. Valley Metallurgical Processing Co.1/18/2005
Following an unsuccessful appeal to this court from the decision of the workers' compensation commissioner, the plaintiff, Ramona Melendez, filed a motion to open the decision of the workers' compensation review board (board), which the board granted. The principal question presented in this appeal is whether the board had subject matter jurisdiction to act on the plaintiff's motion. We conclude that it did not and therefore reverse the decision of the board.
On June 18, 1970, Nozario Melendez was injured in a work-related accident and died of those injuries the following day. Thereafter, the defendants, Valley Metal-lurgical Processing Company, Inc., and Wausau Insurance Company (Wausau), were ordered to pay weekly benefits of $66.61 to the plaintiff widow beginning June 19, 1970, and continuing weekly until her death or remarriage. At the time of that award, the Workers' Compensation Act, General Statutes § 31-275 et seq., did not provide for cost of living adjustments for widows.
In 1977, General Statutes § 31-306 was amended to provide for cost of living adjustments. Beginning October 1, 1977, the plaintiff was thus entitled to such allowances. Although Wausau continued to pay the weekly benefits due to the plaintiff, no cost of living payments were made. For the next twenty-two years, this pattern continued.
The plaintiff began receiving weekly benefits that included cost of living payments on May 13, 1999. At that time, the parties agreed that the plaintiff was entitled to a base principal payment of $127,998.51 for the cost of living arrearage, which Wausau paid on June 10, 1999. The parties disputed the issues of interest, penalties and attorney's fees.
The tortured procedural history of this case commenced on November 15, 1999, when a formal hearing was held before a commissioner of the workers' compensation commission. On January 14, 2000, the commissioner issued a finding and award in which he awarded interest and attorney's fees to the plaintiff. The commissioner denied the claim for penalty interest under General Statutes §§ 31-300 and 31-303.
The plaintiff appealed from that decision to the board, contending, inter alia, that the commissioner had awarded insufficient interest, penalties and attorney's fees. In a decision dated May 1, 2001, the board affirmed in part and reversed in part the commissioner's finding and award. It remanded the matter to the commissioner for further evidentiary proceedings regarding the calculation of interest and attorney's fees. The plaintiff appealed from the board's decision to this court, which dismissed the appeal for lack of a final judgment.
On remand, the commissioner issued a finding and award dated January 28, 2003, in which he recalculated the interest amount and vacated the original award of attorney's fees. The commissioner also found that the defendants had not unreasonably contested liability. In response, the plaintiff appealed from that decision not to the board, but rather to this court. By order dated May 14, 2003, we granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the appeal. The plaintiff filed a petition for certification to appeal from our judgment, which our Supreme Court denied. See Melendez v. Valley Metallurgical Processing Co., 266 Conn. 904, 832 A.2d 64 (2003).
The plaintiff then filed with the board a motion to open the decision on September 22, 2003, specifically requesting that the board "render its final decision." In response, the defendants filed an objection to the motion to open. On November 19, 2003, the board issued its ruling on the plaintiff's motion to open the decision. The board granted the motion "as a procedural necessity for the lim
Page 1 2 3 Connecticut Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|