89-9083 (1993). MALINA, INC. VS. JOAO PINHEIRO.

CourtRhode Island
Rhode Island Worker Compensation January 1989 - December 1993. 89-9083 (1993). MALINA, INC. VS. JOAO PINHEIRO Term: January 1989 - December 1993W.C.C. No. 89-9083MALINA, INC. VS. JOAO PINHEIROSTATE 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 decree of the trial court. The trial court found that incapacity had ended, and ordered the suspension of benefits. We deny the appeal and affirm the trial court. The medical evidence in this matter consists of the testimony of Dr. Kenneth Morrissey, an orthopedic surgeon, who was the employee's treating physician, and the testimony of Dr. A. Louis Mariorenzi, an orthopedic surgeon, who examined the respondent on behalf of the petitioner. The testimony of Dr. Morrissey was to the effect that the petitioner was totally disabled through January 20, 1989, and that said condition was causally related to the prior work-related incident. His latest examination was on January 20, 1989, and he opined that he continued to remain disabled. Dr. A. Louis Mariorenzi, the employer's witness, examined the employee on April 14, 1989, and a report of his examination was admitted as an exhibit. With respect to incapacity, Dr. Mariorenzi indicated that, in his opinion, the petitioner was capable of performing his normal work. It is apparent from this record that the trial judge was confronted with conflicting medical opinions from equally qualified medical experts which is not an unusual situation in the trial of cases. Here the trial judge opted to accept the opinion of Dr. Mariorenzi with respect to the extent of the petitioner's incapacity, rather than the opinion expressed by Dr. Morrissey. He is free to accept or reject part or all of the medical evidence. Parenteau v. Zimmerman Engineering, Inc., 111 R.I. 68, 299 A.2d 168. The matter on appeal before us consists of a record involving conflicting opinions, and in such circumstances we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the trial judge unless he was clearly wrong or overlooked or misconceived material...

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