89-9030 (1993). BRIAN COUGHLIN VS. OFFICE CONCEPTS.

• Court: Rhode Island

Rhode Island Worker Compensation January 1989 - December 1993. 89-9030 (1993). BRIAN COUGHLIN VS. OFFICE CONCEPTS Term: January 1989 - December 1993W.C.C. No. 89-9030BRIAN COUGHLIN VS. OFFICE CONCEPTSSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT APPELLATE DIVISION DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION GILROY, J.The employee appeals from a decision and decree of the trial court which denied his claim for benefits. We sustain the appeal and reverse. This matter was heard by the trial court on a claim of appeal for trial de novo from proceedings at the Department of Workers' Compensation. It was before the court in the nature of a petition for review alleging incapacity as of May 18, 1989 as a result of a recurrence of the effects of a June 13, 1988 work injury. It appears that after his 1988 injury the employee was medically determined as of November, 1988 to be able to return to work, and subsequently, on January 23, 1989, a department preliminary determination order was rendered terminating his entitlement to benefits. That January 23, 1989 preliminary determination order was not appealed and therefore became effective and binding on the parties with the full force and effect of a decree. See Chaves v. Robert E. Derecktor of Rhode Island, Inc., 569 A.2d 1063, 1065 (R.I. 1990). It further appears that in the latter part of 1988 when Coughlin had been released by his physician to return to work, he did so and returned to work with the respondent, and he said he worked "approximately two hours". When asked why he left work, he testified that "I was terminated". He remained out of work on May 18, 1989 and came under the care of Dr. William R. Barnard, an orthopedic surgeon. On September 12, 1989, further proceedings transpired at the department, namely, employee's request for hearing alleging a recurrence. This matter was before the trial court on appeal for trial de novo from the second department action, and as noted above, was in the posture of a petition to review the unappealed benefit suspension order. The record as thus stated establishes that the unappealed January 23, 1989 preliminary determination order which spoke as of November, 1988, is the benefit suspending order, and the success of the employee's instant recurrence allegations must, as a matter of law to be successful, address and establish a return of incapacity since the time that the suspending order speaks to. The only evidence in the matter hearing on the recurrence issue is the testimony of the petitioner Coughlin and the testimony and records of Dr. Barnard. In support of his allegation, the petitioner presented the medical testimony of Dr. Barnard. The outcome of Coughlin's case turns, therefore, on whether the testimony of Dr. Barnard is competent medical evidence of proof of a recurring incapacity. The test of the competency of medical evidence in...