89-1494 (1993). ROBERT A. STRAVATO VS. ANNEX SHEET METAL and ROOFING CO.

• Court: Rhode Island

Rhode Island Worker Compensation January 1989 - December 1993. 89-1494 (1993). ROBERT A. STRAVATO VS. ANNEX SHEET METAL and ROOFING CO Term: January 1989 - December 1993W.C.C. 89-1494ROBERT A. STRAVATO VS. ANNEX SHEET METAL and ROOFING CO., INC.STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT APPELLATE DIVISION DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION GILROY, J.This case came before the Appellate Division of this court on the employer's appeal from a decree ordering the payment of certain medical expenses. We deny the appeal and affirm the trial court. This case was before the trial court on the employee's petition alleging That the employer has refused to pay for certain medical apparatus, i.e. medically prescribed orthopedic shoes. The parties stipulated as to the facts, agreeing that: "1. That petitioner sustained a work-connected injury on October 8, 1963 and petitioner thereafter received workers' compensation benefits. 2. On April 6, 1976, petitioner's incapacity for work returned by reason of the injury sustained on October 8, 1963. 3. That petitioner returned to work on May 19, 1980 having regained his earning capacity. 4. That by decree entered on June 28, 1977, respondent was ordered to pay for all reasonable medical, hospital and related services rendered to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. 5. That petitioner requires the purchase of two pairs of orthopedic shoes annually. 6. That respondent has purchased shoes as required through 1987; however, on April 18, 1988, respondent denied the payment to petitioner for orthopedic shoes, and alleges that it is no longer required to reimburse petitioner for any future purchases of orthopedic shoes." The respondent argues that this involved a 1963 injury, and since the maximum weekly benefits of compensation for injuries and resulting incapacity for a 1963 injury was a period of eight hundred (800) weeks, that the employer's statutory period of liability has expired, and further, that the expiration of this period discharges the employer from all liability. There is no merit in such argument. At the time of this employee's work-related incapacity, the Workers' Compensation Act specified maximum periods of entitlement for weekly incapacity benefits. At the time material hereto, Sec. 28-33-17, as amended by P.L. 1963, Ch. 45...