89-7916 (1993). MANUEL E. SOUSA VS. PROVIDENCE SUBARU COMPANY.

• Court: Rhode Island

Rhode Island Worker Compensation January 1989 - December 1993. 89-7916 (1993). MANUEL E. SOUSA VS. PROVIDENCE SUBARU COMPANY Term: January 1989 - December 1993W.C.C. 89-7916MANUEL E. SOUSA VS. PROVIDENCE SUBARU COMPANYSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT APPELLATE DIVISION DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION BERTNESS, J.This matter came on to be heard before the Appellate Division upon an appeal of the employee from a decision and decree of the trial judge which was entered on September 19, 1989. This matter was heard in the nature of an appeal from a preliminary determination rendered by the Department of Workers' Compensation denying benefits to the employee on an original petition for an injury sustained on January 13, 1989. The trial court found that the employee had been terminated by the company on January 6, 1989. The court also found that the employee had filed for unemployment compensation on January 9, 1989, thus acknowledging that he was no longer in the employ of the respondent corporation. From said decree, the petitioner/employee has duly claimed his right of appeal and has filed three reasons of appeal in support thereof. The petitioner alleges that the trial judge erred in finding that the employee was receiving unemployment benefits when the employee was not receiving the benefits. The petitioner alleges that the trial judge erred in relying on the case of St. Pierre v. Fulflex, 493 A.2d 817 (1985) because the employee was not receiving unemployment benefits. The third reason of appeal is that the trial court erred in not agreeing with the majority of jurisdictions which hold that an employee retains his or her employment status until they have been paid for their last day worked. 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 v. Caldarone, 486 A.2d 1085, 1087 (R.I. 1985); Moretti v. 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...