 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stamp v. Providence Gas Co.12/31/2004
was no longer disabled as of July 20, 1998 because Dr. Welch had released him to return to his regular job. This information was not necessary for the employee to successfully prosecute an original petition requesting the award of weekly benefits for a work-related injury. The case could easily have been decided before July 1998 and the trial judge would have left the period of incapacity open-ended.
In his fifth reason of appeal, the employee contends that the trial judge was clearly wrong to conclude that he unjustly delayed the proceedings while investigating his allegations of fraud when the trial judge never specifically ruled on that allegation. We have addressed in more detail the issue of the appropriateness of the investigation into the alleged fraud and the lack of a specific finding regarding that issue in the trial decree in our decision in the underlying cases, W.C.C. Nos. 96-00465, 96-02253 and 96-02254. It is sufficient to state here that the question of why one (1) of the doctors was apparently not provided a complete set of the employee's MRI films was completely irrelevant to the merits of the original petition. Once it was established that the doctor's opinion was based upon an incomplete set of films and the missing films may have revealed additional damage to the spine, the probative value of the doctor's opinion was effectively depleted. The time spent attempting to establish some sort of conspiracy on the part of the hospital and the third party administrator to intentionally provide an incomplete set of films constituted undue delay in the context of the original petition pending before the court. Such an allegation may have been better addressed in a different forum.
After reviewing the record in this matter, and the trial judge's detailed decision, we find that he did not abuse his discretion in denying the award of interest in this case. For the reasons set forth above, we deny and dismiss the employee's appeal and affirm the decision and decree of the trial judge.
In accordance with Rule 2.20 of the Rules of Practice of the Workers' Compensation Court, a final decree, a copy of which is enclosed, shall be entered on
Bertness and Connor, JJ. concur.
Olsson, J.
Bertness, J.
Connor, J.
FINAL DECREE OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This cause came on to be heard by the Appellate Division upon the appeal of the petitioner/employee and upon consideration thereof, the employee's appeal is denied and dismissed and it is:
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
The findings of fact and the orders contained in a decree of this Court entered on September 3, 2002 be, and they hereby are, affirmed.
|