The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed an administrative law judge’s decision that an employer did not meet the deadline to file a notice because, while they mailed the notice on time, it was not received by the Workers’ Compensation Commission until after the deadline had passed. The case is Ajdini v. Frank Lill & Son, Inc., 312 A.3d 579 (Conn. 2024).
Background
Ajredin Ajdini, the plaintiff, suffered two separate injuries in July 2018 while in the course of his employment and sought workers’ compensation benefits from his employer, Frank Lill & Son, Inc. Ajdini sent a Form 30C notice of claim for compensation for his injuries to the Workers’ Compensation Commission and his employer, as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-294c(a). The Commission received the forms on May 3, 2019.
Frank Lill & Son, Inc. mailed a Form 43 notice of intention to contest the plaintiff’s rights to compensation benefits on May 29, 2019. The Commission received the form on June 3, 2019. Ajdini filed a motion to preclude, arguing that his employer did not file its intent to contest the claim within the twenty-eight day deadline after receiving the claim, as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-294c(b).
The administrative law judge granted Ajdini’s motion, and the Compensation Review Board later affirmed the decision. The defendants appealed, and the case was brought to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.
The Statute
The defendant argued that the review board erred in their ruling because they mailed the notice within the twenty-eight day deadline, and for the purposes of the statute, mailing is the same as filing.
Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-294c(b) states, in part, “Whenever liability to pay compensation is contested by the employer, he shall file with the administrative law judge, on or before the twenty-eighth day after he has received a written notice of claim, a notice in accord with a form prescribed by the chairperson of the Workers’ Compensation Commission stating that the right to compensation is contested, the name of the claimant, the name of the employer, the date of the alleged injury or death and the specific grounds on which the right to compensation is contested. The employer shall send a copy of the notice to the employee in accordance with section 31-321.”
File, Defined
The plaintiff argued that filing is not the same as mailing, as filing requires receipt. Since “file” was not defined in the statute, the court looked at its commonly approved usage. Turning to dictionary definitions, they found “file” to mean “to deliver an instrument or other paper to the proper officer or official for the purpose of being kept on file by him as a matter of record and reference in the proper place” and “to deliver (as a legal paper or instrument)...to the proper officer for keeping on file or among the records of his office.”
The court found that it was unambiguous that the notice must have been delivered to the administrative law judge, and not just mailed, within twenty-eight days after the employer received written notice of the claim.
File vs. Send
To further reinforce the ruling, the court pointed to how different terms were used in the statute. While the statute required the employer to file a notice with the administrative law judge, it also stated that they must “send a copy of the notice to the employee.” Again, looking at a dictionary definition, they found “send” to mean “to deposit in the mail or deliver for transmission by any other usual means of communication…” The court concluded that if it was the intent of the lawmakers to make it so that mailing the notice within the deadline satisfied the employer’s obligation, then they would have used “send” in place of “file,” as they did later in the same statute. The court affirmed the decision of the Compensation Review Board.
Editor’s Note: As we’ve seen done with insurance policies, courts will also turn to dictionary definitions to find the commonly approved usage of undefined words in statutes as well. The court used a dictionary definition and contextual clues to determine that the statute required that the notice be delivered within twenty-eight days and not just mailed. This case also highlights the importance of adhering to deadlines. No matter their interpretation of the statute, promptness by the employer could have saved them significant costs. Timing is critically important, and a clear understanding of whether the deadline requires something to be received or just mailed is important.
Read More: