90-00356 (1993). EMIDIO MENDES VS. ITT ROYAL ELECTRIC.

CourtRhode Island
Rhode Island Worker Compensation January 1989 - December 1993. 90-00356 (1993). EMIDIO MENDES VS. ITT ROYAL ELECTRIC Term: January 1989 - December 1993W.C.C. 90-00356EMIDIO MENDES VS. ITT ROYAL ELECTRICSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT APPELLATE DIVISION DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION ROTONDI, J.This matter came on to be heard before the Appellate Division upon an appeal of the employee from a decision and decree of the trial judge which was entered on June 3, 1992. This matter was heard in the nature of an employee's petition to review alleging that the employer refuses to provide or pay for necessary services, specifically that authorization for pre-payment was refused for the employee to be admitted to the Institute for Behavioral Medicine. The decision of the trial judge contained the following finding: "1. That the petitioner/employee has failed to prove by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence that the respondent/employer has refused to provide or pay for necessary medical services, specifically in that it was refused to grant authorization for the employee to be admitted to the Institute for Behavorial Medicine. It is, therefore, ordered: 1. That the petition is denied and dismissed." From said decree the petitioner/employee has duly claimed his right of appeal and has filed one reason of appeal in support thereof, alleging that the decision is against the law and the evidence in that the trial judge abused her discretion in failing to recognize the employee's right to receive authorization from the Workers' Compensation Court for a necessary service prior to incurring the bill. Normally, when considering an appeal of the trial judge's decree, the Appellate Division conducts in essence a de novo review, examining and weighing the evidence, drawing its conclusions, making its own findings of fact, and ultimately deciding whether the evidence preponderates in favor of or against the findings embodied in the decree. e.g., Bottiglieri vs. Caldarone, 486 A.2d 1085, 1087, (R.I. 1985); Moretti vs. Turin, Inc., 112 R.I. 220, 223, 308 A.2d 500, 502 (1973). Cognizant of this legal duty imposed upon us, we have carefully reviewed and examined the entire record in this matter, have independently weighed the evidence contained in the record, and for reasons...

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