89-8535 (1993). LEOPOLDINA DELACRUZ VS. SWAROVSKI AMERICA LTD.

• Court: Rhode Island

Rhode Island Worker Compensation January 1989 - December 1993. 89-8535 (1993). LEOPOLDINA DELACRUZ VS. SWAROVSKI AMERICA LTD Term: January 1989 - December 1993W.C.C. 89-8535LEOPOLDINA DELACRUZ VS. SWAROVSKI AMERICA LTD.STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPELLATE DIVISION DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION ROTONDI, J.This matter came on to be heard before the Appellate Division upon an appeal of the petitioner from a decision and decree of the Trial Judge, which was entered February 21, 1992. This matter was heard on a claim of appeal for a trial de novo following a ruling at the Department of Workers' Compensation. The petition was heard by the trial judge in the nature of an employee's original petition alleging that she sustained a work related injury on 3/27/89. The decision and decree contained the following findings, inter alia: "1. That on March 27, 1989 the employee sustained an injury arising out and in the course of her employment with the respondent, connected therewith and referable thereto, of which injury the respondent had knowledge. 2. The employee sustained an injury to her low back, and left knee. 3. The employee has not shown an injury to her left hip. * * * 5. The employee was totally incapacitated for work from March 29, 1989 to December 10, 1989, and no longer incapacitated for work either in whole or in part when seen by Dr. Spindell on December 11, 1989." Benefits were ordered to be paid consistent with the above findings. From said decree the employee has duly claimed her right of appeal and has filed seven reason of appeal in support thereof, alleging that the decree is against the evidence, law, and that the trial judge misconceived, misconstrued and overlooked evidence in various way. The petitioner also alleges that the judge committed prejudicial error. 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 vs. Caldarone, 486 A.2d 1085, 1087, (R.I. 1985); Moretti vs. Turin, Inc., 112 R.I. 220, 223, 308 A.2d 500, 502 (1973). Cognizant of this...