89-09115 (1993). RICHARD CAVE VS. WARREN EQUITY OIL.

• Court: Rhode Island

Rhode Island Worker Compensation January 1989 - December 1993. 89-09115 (1993). RICHARD CAVE VS. WARREN EQUITY OIL Term: January 1989 - December 1993W.C.C. 89-9115RICHARD CAVE VS. WARREN EQUITY OILW.C.C. 90-5962RICHARD CAVE VS. WARREN EQUITY OIL CO.STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT APPELLATE DIVISION DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION ROTONDI, J.These matters came on to be heard before the Appellate Division upon an appeal of the respondent from a decision and decree of the trial judge which was entered on May 28, 1992. W.C.C. 89-09115 was heard as an original petition alleging the employee was injured on June 21, 1989, said injury to his back. W.C.C. 90-05962 is an employee's petition to review alleging a recurrence of a September 30, 1987 work related injury on June 21, 1989. Both matters were heard at the Department of Workers' Compensation, and were appealed to the court for a de novo hearing. From said decree both parties have filed appeals in these matters. The respondent/employer has filed six reasons of appeal in support thereof, alleging that the trial judge committed error in finding that the resulting disability was an aggravation which occurred on June 21, 1989 and not a recurrence of the original injury of September 30, 1987. The petitioner has filed "a protective appeal." He states that in the event the Appellate Division should uphold the appeal in W.C.C. 89-09115, it would then become necessary for the Appellate Division to uphold petitioner/employee's appeal in W.C.C. 90-05962. 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. The employee sustained an injury on September 30, 1987 to his low back which was evidenced by a memorandum of agreement which was duly...