89-8606 (1993). MC DONALD'S CORP. VS. TINA JENNINGS.

• Court: Rhode Island

Rhode Island Worker Compensation January 1989 - December 1993. 89-8606 (1993). MC DONALD'S CORP. VS. TINA JENNINGS Term: January 1989 - December 1993W.C.C. 89-8606MC DONALD'S CORP. VS. TINA JENNINGSSTATE 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 found that the employee's incapacity had ended, and ordered the suspension of compensation benefits. We deny the appeal and affirm the trial court decree. The employee's single reason of appeal alleges as error that: "...that the Trial Judge misconceived and overlooked the entire testimony, by affidavit and report, of Dr. Benson, the treating physician, and the diagnostic tests relied upon by the doctor, of a positive EMG for left peroneal neuropathy consistent with the employee's complaints of lower back and left leg pain and the doctor's opinion of ongoing disability." There is no merit in this argument. In his decision the trial judge clearly stated that he reviewed the affidavit and reports of Dr. Arthur Benson, the physician referred to in the above quoted reason of appeal. In his decision he stated: "After review of the evidence, it is apparent that there is a consistency in the opinions of some of the doctors but a conflict relative to others. After a thorough review of all of the evidence submitted in this matter, I prefer to rely upon those opinions as expressed by Dr. Danny Humbyrd and Dr. Anthony F. Merlino, who were of the opinion that the employee could return to her former job duties without same being injurious to her health. A review of Dr. Stutz's report revealed that he was not totally sure as to the cause of her condition, whether it resulted from her pregnancy or otherwise. I also reviewed the (affidavit) and reports of Dr. Benson. After reading all of the evidence, I prefer to rely upon those opinions as stated above by (Drs.) Humbyrd and Merlino because I found (their) statements to be very clear, concise and definite. They were both (emphatic) in their statement that the employee was no longer disabled." (emphasis added) From our review of this record, it is apparent that the trial judge was confronted with conflicting medical opinions from equally qualified medical experts...