Audi v. Chapman
In Audi v. Chapman, No. 3418, CRB-3-96-9 (August 4, 1997), the board concluded that when the legislature used the term "notified" it meant "properly and timely notified, rather than unsuccessfully notified. Public Acts 95-277, 3 (e), now codified as General Statutes 31-349 (e), clearly deals with pending notice claims that the Fund had been apprised of prior to July 1, 1995, and forces the party seeking transfer to reaffirm its intent to pursue its claim, as all claims were deemed withdrawn with prejudice subject to renotification by October 1, 1995. See 38 S. Proc., Pt. 15, 1995 Sess., p. 5487 (remarks of Senator John A. Kissel).
Nowhere in this provision does the legislature evince an intent to allow parties that have missed the filing deadline in the past to resurrect those claims by re- notifying the Fund of their intent to seek transfer." Audi v. Chapman, No. 3418, CRB-3-96-9 (August 4, 1997).