89-0717 (1993). MATTHEW J. ZITO VS. CITY OF PROVIDENCE.

• Court: Rhode Island

Rhode Island Worker Compensation January 1989 - December 1993. 89-0717 (1993). MATTHEW J. ZITO VS. CITY OF PROVIDENCE Term: January 1989 - December 1993W.C.C. 89-0717MATTHEW J. ZITO VS. CITY OF PROVIDENCESTATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION DECISION OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSION GILROY.The petitioner appeals from a decision and decree of Trial Commissioner Arrigan which denied and dismissed without prejudice his petition for an award of Section 28-33-19(a)(14)(B), disfigurement compensation for surgically related scarring. The thrust of the petitioner's appeal is as set out in his reason of appeal No. 4 where he asserts that: "The Single Commissioner erred as a matter of law in refusing to decide the petition for specific benefits merely based upon the fact that an appeal is pending in the principal case, which injury date occurred on December 15, 1985." In his decision the trial commissioner referred to a companion case, which he had heard pursuant to this employee's original petition, which sought to establish liability for the employee's physical condition which necessitated the surgery, resulting in the scarring at issue in this case. He stated: "A brief review of the matter of Zito v. City of Providence, 87-0512 is in order (Under the so-called Seamless Robe Doctrine set forth in Proulx v. French Worsted, 98 R.I. 114). A review of W.C.C. No. 87-0512 indicates that the matter was appealed by both parties, that is the employee as well as the employer for various reasons. The reasons of appeal of the petitioner had been duly filed and the reasons of appeal from the employer-respondent have not been filed in that the time for filing reasons of appeal had been extended and said period has not run. * * * In the matter at hand, W.C.C. No. 89-0717, I feel in that the high court, in the cases mentioned above, has indicated that specific compensation is damages and that this (is) a separate and distinct issue. As such, I am of the view that for Zito to be paid benefits for specific mandates that liability be in fact established. It is clear that liability will not be established until the Appellate process ( 28-35-28) runs its course. I am of the opinion, therefore, in that liability has not been established pending the resolution of the appeals, I have no...