89-9450 (1993). SUPERIOR HEALTH CARE VS. JOYCE ANN VOSE.

• Court: Rhode Island

Rhode Island Worker Compensation January 1989 - December 1993. 89-9450 (1993). SUPERIOR HEALTH CARE VS. JOYCE ANN VOSE Term: January 1989 - December 1993W.C.C. 89-9450SUPERIOR HEALTH CARE VS. JOYCE ANN VOSESTATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPELLATE DIVISION DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION GILROY, J.The employee appeals from a decision and decree of the trial court which ordered the suspension of benefits received as a result of a low back injury of June 16, 1989. Subsequent to the decision of the trial court on April 25, 1991, but before the entry of the decree on said decision, the petitioner, on May 2, 1990 moved to reopen the trial for additional evidence concerning circumstances surrounding the incident of November 2, 1989 that the trial court stated was "...an intervening accident which was again superimposed upon her own personal medical profile". This motion was heard and denied by the trial court on May 2, 1990, and on May 3, 1990 a decree was entered on his decision of April 25, 1991. This appeal ensued, the petitioner alleging, inter alia, that the trial court erred in ruling that the November 2, 1989 incident was an intervening accident, and in his denial of her motion to reopen to testify as to the circumstances surrounding the November 2, 1989 incident. The trial court correctly ruled that once a decision had been rendered, he was powerless to reopen to take further evidence, his reopening authority being confined to the time interval between the conclusion of reception of evidence and the actual rendering of his decision, Carr v. General Insulated Wire Works, Inc., 97 R.I. 487, 199 A.2d 24 (1964). Sec. 28-35-28, entitled "Appeal to appellate division" provides in part: "...Upon consideration of the appeal, the appellate division shall affirm, reverse or modify the decree appealed from, and may itself take such further proceedings as just, or may remand the matter to the trial judge for further consideration of any factual issue that the appellate division may raise, including the taking of additional evidence or testimony by the trial judge. It shall be within the prerogative of the appellate division to remand a matter to the trial judge...." The record of the hearing on the May 2, 1990 motion to reopen contains an offer of proof made by the...