89-7992 (1993). AGNES PAIVA VS. RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL.

CourtRhode Island
Rhode Island Worker Compensation January 1989 - December 1993. 89-7992 (1993). AGNES PAIVA VS. RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL Term: January 1989 - December 1993W.C.C. 89-7992AGNES PAIVA VS. RHODE ISLAND HOSPITALSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT APPELLATE DIVISION DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION GILROY, J.The employee has filed two claims of appeal in this case. She first appealed from a decree of October 31, 1989 which denied her claim for benefits. She subsequently appealed from a decision and decree of November 9, 1989 of the trial court in which he denied her motion to vacate that decree that he had entered on October 31, 1989. Her reasons of appeal allege error in the trial court decree of October 31, 1989 which denied her claim for benefits, and also with respect to his denial of her motion to vacate and set aside that decree. The appeals are denied and both decrees are affirmed. The decree of October 31, 1989 finds, inter alia: "1. That the petitioner has failed to prove that she sustained any injuries, including an injury to her shoulder and neck on November 17, 1988 which arose out of and in the course of her employment with the respondent, connected therewith and referable thereto, of which injury the respondent had knowledge. 2. That the petitioner had four (4) opportunities to present medical testimony in an attempt to support her claim and none has been forthcoming." The substance of the petitioner's appeal is that "The decision is against the law and the evidence in that the Trial Commissioner failed to grant a continuance as was reasonable for good cause, and that the respondent was not prejudiced by the Request for Continuance which was unreasonably denied by the Trial Commissioner." From the reasons of appeal she filed, it is apparent to us that she is alleging error only with respect to the October 31, 1989 decree, and has waived any allegations of legal error with respect to the trial court's procedural ruling in the November 9, 1989 decree that he lacked authority and jurisdiction to set aside or vacate his earlier decree on the merits, and this appeal will be so treated by us. The record indicates that the matter was reached for hearing in the nature of an original petition, and the petitioner testified on August 3, 1989. In his decision, with respect to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT