89-7845 (1993). DAVID A. VINCENT VS. ROBERT E. DERECKTOR.

• Court: Rhode Island

Rhode Island Worker Compensation January 1989 - December 1993. 89-7845 (1993). DAVID A. VINCENT VS. ROBERT E. DERECKTOR Term: January 1989 - December 1993W.C.C. 89-7845DAVID A. VINCENT VS. ROBERT E. DERECKTORSTATE 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 and decree which denied and dismissed this case. From the record it appears that a Department of Workers' Compensation Preliminary Determination Order was issued on December 6, 1988 which denied by default the employee's prayer for specific compensation for loss of use and disfigurement of his left thumb, and that the employee failed to take appropriate action at the department level to remove the default pursuant to the then existing department procedural rules. Thereafter, apparently on February 10, 1989, a second hearing was requested at the department level and a hearing pursuant thereto was held on March 8, 1989, at which time a department Preliminary Determination Order denied the claim for specific benefits in light of the prior default order, but granted the employee's request for payment of a medical bill, as the bill had not been included in the defaulted case. The employee then appealed from the March 8, 1989 Preliminary Determination Order, which appeal brought this case for trial de novo before the trial court. When reached for trial the following colloquy between the Court and counsel took place: "COMMISSIONER: Do I discern that there was a hearing and there was a default which was never removed and then thereafter there was a second hearing? *** COMMISSIONER: Well the hearing of 2/10/89 no one appeared apparently according to the notation from the Department on 12/6/88 which was never appealed. MS. CRAVEN: That is correct. COMMISSIONER: And that defaulted your client and it has never been removed. The next activity that took place made reference to that and it stated that disfigurement, loss of use is denied and then they granted the request on 3/8/89 for the payment of the medical bills so the issue on appeal before me is the medical bill period. Has that been paid? MS. CRAVEN: The medical bill has been paid. COMMISSIONER: So then there is nothing left for me to do. MS. CRAVEN: I can withdraw...