89-1945 (1993). MARITZA MACRAE VS. HASBRO INDUSTRIES.

• Court: Rhode Island

Rhode Island Worker Compensation January 1989 - December 1993. 89-1945 (1993). MARITZA MACRAE VS. HASBRO INDUSTRIES Term: January 1989 - December 1993W.C.C. 89-1945MARITZA MACRAE VS. HASBRO INDUSTRIESSTATE 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 a claim of appeal by the petitioner from a decision and decree entered May 2, 1990. This matter was heard on an employee's petition to review alleging that her incapacity for work had returned. The decision and decree of the Trial Judge contained negative findings, indicating that the petitioner/employee failed to prove that she sustained a return of incapacity for work as a result of her January 18, 1982 paralumbar muscle strain. From said decree the petitioner duly claimed her appeal and has filed four reasons of appeal in support thereof, alleging that the decree and decision is against the law and the evidence in that the Trial Judge incorrectly denied and dismissed the petition based upon a lack of foundation concerning Dr. Richard Bertini's testimony, all the reasons being similar in nature. In the case of Verte v. Mearthane Corp., 583 A.2d 524 (R.I. 1990), the court reaffirmed the well settled rule in this jurisdiction that when considering an appeal from a Trial Judge's decree, the Appellate Division examines and weighs the evidence, draws its own conclusions, makes its own findings of fact, and ultimately decides whether the evidence preponderates in favor of or against the findings of the Trial Court's decree. Hicks v. Vennerbeck and Clase Co., 525 A.2d 37 (R.I. 1987); Bottiglieri v. Caldarone, 486 A.2d 1085, 1087 (R.I. 1985). 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 perceive no error on the part of the trial judge. A brief explanation of the facts is necessary. A copy of a decree in W.C.C. 82-1602 was duly admitted into evidence and revealed that the employee sustained an injury to her low back on January 18, 1982. This injury was described as a paralumbar muscle strain. Said decree ordered that the employee be paid compensation benefits for a period of...