 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stamp v. Providence Gas Co.12/31/2004
DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This matter is before the Appellate Division on the petitioner/employee's appeal from the decision and decree of the trial judge denying his request that statutory interest be added to the compensation benefits awarded to him in W.C.C. No. 96-00465 pursuant to R.I.G.L. ยง28-35-12(c). After careful review of the record and consideration of the arguments of the parties, we deny the employee's appeal, and affirm the decision of the trial judge.
W.C.C. No. 96-00465 was an original petition in which Mr. Stamp alleged that he sustained a work-related injury to his back on February 8, 1994. That case was heard together with two (2) additional original petitions filed by the employee, W.C.C. Nos. 96-02254 and 96-02253. In a decree entered on March 13, 2002 in W.C.C. No. 96-00465, the employee was awarded weekly benefits for partial incapacity from January 9, 1996 through July 29, 1996, for total incapacity from July 30, 1996 through October 14, 1996, and again for partial incapacity from October 15, 1996 through July 20, 1998. Pursuant to a decision issued simultaneously with this matter, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial judge's decision in W.C.C. No. 96-00465.
The original petition in W.C.C. No. 96-00465 was filed on January 22, 1996. A pretrial order was entered on February 21, 1996 which denied the petition and the employee filed a claim for trial. The matter proceeded to trial, consolidated with two (2) other original petitions which had been subsequently filed by the employee. On June 23, 1998, the employee rested and on November 4, 1999, the employer rested. The employee then moved to reopen all three (3) matters. That motion was granted on May 16, 2000. Further evidence was presented to the court. However, problems arose between the employee and his attorney and the matters were continued for several months pending the filing of a motion to withdraw as counsel. Apparently, the employee and his attorney resolved their differences. The cases were then continued a number of times for submission of memoranda and proposed findings of fact. The matters finally concluded on or about October 25, 2001. The trial judge's written decision was rendered on February 21, 2002 and the decree was entered on March 13, 2002.
In rendering his decision in this matter as to whether interest should be awarded, the trial judge considered testimony of the employee regarding his recollection of the course of the litigation, the docket sheets from the three (3) original petitions (W.C.C. Nos. 96-00465, 96-02253 and 96-02254) and the actual court files from those cases.
The trial judge denied the request for interest on the ground that the proceedings had been unduly delayed by the employee. He noted that the case was a standard original petition involving a low back injury which should have been completed in a much shorter period of time. The medical evidence which the trial judge relied upon in awarding benefits was available at least by late 1997. The trial judge stated that the employee sought continuances and further hearings thereafter in an unsuccessful effort to prove that his employer and their third party administrator for workers' compensation had committed fraud in failing to provide all of his MRI films to one (1) of the doctors. This quest consumed a significant amount of time, leading the trial judge to conclude that the employer should not be penalized by paying interest when the delay in finalizing this litigation in a timely manner was attributable to the employee.
The scope of our review at the appellate level is very limited. The findings of fact made by a trial judge are final unless the appellate panel
Page 1 2 3 Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|