89-9604 (1993). TRIFARI, KRUSSMAN, and FISHEL VS. STEVEN MARABELLO.

• Court: Rhode Island

Rhode Island Worker Compensation January 1989 - December 1993. 89-9604 (1993). TRIFARI, KRUSSMAN, and FISHEL VS. STEVEN MARABELLO Term: January 1989 - December 1993W.C.C. No. 89-9604TRIFARI, KRUSSMAN, and FISHEL VS. STEVEN MARABELLOSTATE 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 benefit suspending decree. This case was heard in the nature of the employer's petition for review alleging alternatively that the employee's incapacity had ended and that the employee had refused an offer of suitable alternative employment. It was tried consolidated with a companion case, Marabello v. Trifari, Krussman, and Fishel, W.C.C. No. 89-7768, which was in the nature of an original petition. Both matters had been appealed for trial de novo from proceedings at the Department of Workers' Compensation. The court properly heard both matters as consolidated cases pursuant to the celebrated "seamless robe" doctrine. See Proulx v. The French Worsted Company 98 R.I. 114, 123, 199 A.2d 901 (1964). From the record it appears that during the trial of these matters, a memorandum of agreement dated March 9, 1989 had been executed by the respondent. Accordingly, the trial court decision rendered in W.C.C. 89-7768, the liability seeking petition, found that by virtue of that memorandum the liability issue had been rendered moot, and a decree was entered thereon dismissing the original petition as moot. That case was not appealed and has become a final judgment. We note at the outset that had the parties complied with our rule calling for the filing of informational pleadings in matters appealed out of the Department of Workers' Compensation, where matters such as orderly pleadings were routinely treated in cavalier fashion, much of the confusion surrounding the status of this case and its companion case would have been eliminated. See Rule 2.4(b), Workers' Compensation Court Rules of Practice. Remaining before the trial court was the employer's review matter, W.C.C. 89-9604. Upon the conclusion of that case the trial court rendered a decision and entered a decree thereon which found that the employee was no longer incapacitated either in whole or in part, and also, that he had refused an offer of suitable...