89-08510 (1993). VINCENT D'AMICO VS. M and G CONVOY.

• Court: Rhode Island

Rhode Island Worker Compensation January 1989 - December 1993. 89-08510 (1993). VINCENT D'AMICO VS. M and G CONVOY Term: January 1989 - December 1993W.C.C. 89-08510VINCENT D'AMICO VS. M and G CONVOYSTATE 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 March 5, 1991. This matter was heard in the nature of an employee's petition to review alleging that the compensation agreement or order does not accurately and completely set forth the nature and location of all injuries sustained by the employee. The employee seeks to amend the petition to include "subsequent stress disorder". A memorandum of agreement citing a date of injury of July 2, 1987 and nature and location of injury as "lumbosacral strain", was admitted into evidence and is the subject of this review. The decision and decree of the trial judge contained the following finding: "1. That the petitioner/employee has not sustained his burden of prove that he sustained a stress disorder resulting from his work-related injury of July 2, 1987. It is, therefore, ordered: 1. The petitioner/employee's Petition is denied and dismissed." From said decree, the employee has duly claimed his right of appeal and has filed one reason of appeal in support thereof, alleging that the decision is against the law and evidence in that the trial judge did not properly evaluate the testimony when she refused to accept the testimony of Dr. Irving Rosen, whose testimony was entered by deposition. 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 reviewed and examined the entire record in this matter, have independently weighed the evidence contained in the record, and for reasons hereinafter set forth, we find no error on the part of the trial judge. A brief explanation of the facts in this matter is necessary. This matter was heard and...