89-00637 (1993). JOSE C. LESTE VS. ITT ROYAL ELECTRIC.

• Court: Rhode Island

Rhode Island Worker Compensation January 1989 - December 1993. 89-00637 (1993). JOSE C. LESTE VS. ITT ROYAL ELECTRIC Term: January 1989 - December 1993W.C.C. 89-00637JOSE C. LESTE VS. ITT ROYAL ELECTRICSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT APPELLATE DIVISION DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION ROTONDI, J.This matter came on to be heard before the Appellate Division upon an appeal of the petitioner from a decision and decree of the trial judge which was entered on February 11, 1992. This matter was heard in the nature of an employee's original petition seeking benefits for specific compensation, to wit, scarring to the right knee, as a result of a work related injury which occurred on October 11, 1984. The decision and decree of the trial judge contained the following finding: "1. That the petitioner/employee has failed to prove by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence that he is entitled to specific compensation for a scarring resulting from a work-related injury, as his right knee scar was never established to be a work-related injury by any Memorandum of Agreement or Decree." It was therefore ordered that the petition be denied and dismissed. From said decree, the employee has duly claimed his right of appeal and has filed two reasons of appeal in support thereof, alleging that the decision is against the law and evidence in that the trial judge should have denied and dismissed the matter without prejudice inasmuch as the memorandum of agreement did not cite a right knee injury, and the employee should have the right to file a petition to include the right knee and litigate that issue independently of the above cited matter. Reason of appeal No. 2 is very similar to that referred to above as contained in reason of appeal No. 1. Normally, when considering an appeal of the trial judge's decree, the Appellate Division conducts in essence a de novo review, examining and weighing the evidence, drawing its conclusions, making its own findings of fact, and ultimately deciding whether the evidence preponderates in favor of or against the findings embodied in the decree, e.g., Bottiglieri vs. Caldarone, 486 A.2d 1085, 1087, (R.I. 1985); Moretti vs. Turin, Inc., 112 R.I. 220, 223, 308 A.2d 500, 502 (1973). Cognizant of this legal duty imposed upon us, we have carefully...