89-3117 (1993). MANUEL B. SILVIA VS. ROGER WILLIAMS FOODS.

• Court: Rhode Island

Rhode Island Worker Compensation January 1989 - December 1993. 89-3117 (1993). MANUEL B. SILVIA VS. ROGER WILLIAMS FOODS Term: January 1989 - December 1993W.C.C. 89-3117MANUEL B. SILVIA VS. ROGER WILLIAMS FOODSSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT APPELLATE DIVISION DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION GILROY, J.This is the employee's appeal from a trial court decision which denied his petition to review seeking to amend the description of injury to include the right hip. For reasons herein set forth, we deny the appeal. From the record it appears that the trial judge was confronted with a stipulation of facts concerning two separate low back injuries sustained by the employee. He was also presented with medical evidence in the form of the testimony of the employee's treating physician, Dr. Robert Fortuna, and the employer's examining physician, Dr. A. Louis Mariorenzi. Both physicians had testified in a previous case, therefore their testimony was introduced under the seamless robe doctrine. (See Proulx v. The French Worsted Company, 98 R.I. 114, 123, 199 A.2d 901 (1964). The issue before the court in this matter is whether the employee's right hip condition is causally related to either of the employee's low back injuries. Following hearing, the trial court accepted the employer's medical evidence as most persuasive, and found that the employee failed to prove by a fair preponderance of credible evidence that the earlier consent decree under review (W.C.C. No. 86-5737) did not accurately and completely set forth the nature and location of injuries sustained by him on November 2, 1983, and accordingly denied this petition to review. In his single reason of appeal, the employee in substance alleges that the trial judge's decision was without basis in law or fact. The employee, however, has failed to set forth a specific allegation of error on behalf of the trial judge other than to assert that the trial court's decision "...does not show any meaningful interpretation of the testimony" and that the judge's explanation of his acceptance of the medical evidence is "...again without any basis and are merely a repeat of a rationale the trial judge uses in relying upon an employer's physician. We have examined the record and note that the trial court stated in his commentary...