Chzrislonk v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co.
| Citation | 125 A. 874,101 Conn. 356 |
| Parties | CHZRISLONK v. NEW YORK, N.H. & H. R. CO. |
| Decision Date | 28 July 1924 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Leonard J. Nickerson Judge.
Joseph V. Esposito, of New Haven, for appellant.
Harry M. French, of New Haven, for appellee.
The record discloses that the claim of the injured party in this case came before the compensation commissioner for the Third district on February 19, 1823, the claimant being represented by counsel, and by continuance on the 4th, 14th, and 19th days of March, 1923. On the 11th day of April, 1923, a finding and award was made by the commissioner, dismissing the claim of the claimant. No appeal was taken by the claimant within 10 days after this decision of the compensation commissioner, but on the 24th day of April 1923, the claimant moved for a rehearing and recommittal of the finding and award in this action, on the ground that he was not aware, at the time of the original hearings of the ground of defense of the respondent, and was not prepared at that time to argue the questions of law involved therein. The commissioner denied this motion on the 8th day of June, 1923 and on the 13th day of June, 1923, the claimant filed notice of appeal from the finding and award and supplemental finding and award.
The Workmen's Compensation Act (Gen. St. 1918, § § 5339-5414) and all proceedings thereunder are entirely matters of statute, and we are necessarily bound by the statutes in such cases. Section 5365 of the General Statutes section 13 of chapter 142 of the Public Acts of 1919, reads in part as follows:
No appeal was taken by either party within 10 days from the decision of the commissioner in this action upon his original finding and award, and under the provisions of the foregoing statute this finding and award then became final and enforceable in the same manner as a judgment of the superior court.
As to that portion of the claimant's appeal assigning error in the refusal of the commissioner to grant the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vincenzo v. Warden
...346, 351, 542 A.2d 672 (1988); Cahill v. Board of Education, 198 Conn. 229, 238, 502 A.2d 410 (1985); Chzrislonk v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 101 Conn. 356, 358, 125 A. 874 (1924). We begin by taking note of the basic purpose underlying what is one of the most extraordinary and unique lega......
-
Pet v. Department of Health Services
...that it has no jurisdiction, it is bound to dismiss the case, without regard to its previous rulings." ' Chzrislonk v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 101 Conn. 356, 358, 125 A. 874 (1924)." Cahill v. Board of Education, 198 Conn. 229, 238, 502 A.2d 410 "The doctrine of exhaustion is grounded in......
-
Kinney v. State
...that it has no jurisdiction, it is bound to dismiss the case, without regard to previous rulings." ' Chzrislonk v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 101 Conn. 356, 358, 125 A. 874 (1924)." Cahill v. Board of Education, supra; Pet v. Department of Health Services, 207 Conn. 346, 351, 542 A.2d 672 (......
-
Kudlacz v. Lindberg Heat Treating Co.
...substantive claim. Chieppo v. Robert E. McMichael, Inc., 169 Conn. 646, 648, 363 A.2d 1085 (1975); Chzrislonk v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 101 Conn. 356, 358, 125 A. 874 (1924) (action dismissing untimely workers' compensation appeal); Wheeler v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 71 Conn. 270, 28......