AC42089 - Dominguez v. New York Sports Club (Workers' compensation; "This case concerns the mandate of General Statutes § 31-294c (b), which obligates an employer presented with proper notice of a workers' compensation claim to respond within twenty-eight days by either filing a notice contesting liability or commencing payment on the claim. The employer in the present case did neither, which led the Compensation Review Board (board) to conclude that the employer was precluded under § 31-294c (b) from contesting both liability for, and the extent of, injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff, Joseph Dominguez. On appeal, the defendant New York Sports Club asks us to extend the narrow exception to the preclusion provision of § 31-294c (b) recognized by this court in Dubrosky v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp., 145 Conn. App. 261, 76 A.3d 657, cert. denied, 310 Conn. 935, 78 A.3d 859 (2013), to cases in which an employer (1) provides no response to a properly filed claim for compensation within the twenty-eight day statutory period, (2) makes no payments on the claim, (3) files an untimely notice contesting liability for the claimant's injuries, and (4) alleges in subsequent administrative proceedings before the Workers' Compensation Commission that it was impossible to commence payment due to the claimant's failure to submit medical bills within the twenty-eight day statutory period. We decline to do so and, accordingly, affirm the decision of the board.")

AC42344 - Salerno v. Lowe's Home Improvement Center (Workers' compensation; "The defendant employer, Lowe's Home Improvement Center, appeals from the decision of the Compensation Review Board (board) affirming the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commissioner (commissioner), who concluded that the defendant was precluded under General Statutes § 31-294c (b) from contesting both liability for, and the extent of, repetitive trauma injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff, Gary Salerno. On appeal, the defendant claims that the board improperly concluded that the present case did not fall within the narrow exception to the preclusion provision of § 31-294c (b) recognized by this court in Dubrosky v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp., 145 Conn. App. 261, 76 A.3d 657, cert. denied, 310 Conn. 935, 78 A.3d 859 (2013). We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the decision of the board.")