DIANNE C. SILVA
v.
WEST VIEW NURSING HOME, INC.
W.C.C. No. 2013-04930
Rhode Island Worker Compensation
State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Providence
November 5, 2019
FINAL
DECREE OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This
matter came on to be heard by the Appellate Division upon the
claim of appeal of the petitioner/employee and upon
consideration thereof, the employee's appeal is denied
and dismissed, arid it is
ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
That
the findings of fact and the orders contained in a decree of
this Court entered on June 26, 2014 be, and they hereby are,
affirmed.
PER
ORDER:
Nicholas
DiFilippo, Administrator
DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
OLSSON, J.
This
matter is before the Appellate Division on the employee's
appeal from the denial of her original petition for
compensation benefits in which she alleges that she sustained
a work-related injury to her chest wall and ribs on April 24,
2013, when a co-worker embraced her in a bear hug. After a
thorough review of the record and consideration of the
arguments of the respective parties, we deny the
employee's appeal and affirm the decision and decree of
the trial judge.
Dianne
C. Silva, the employee, worked as a certified nurse assistant
for West View Nursing Home, Inc. (West View), the employer,
for approximately six (6) years. On August 19, 2013, the
employee filed an original petition seeking workers'
compensation benefits. At the pretrial conference on
September 19, 2013, the trial judge noted the need for a
trial and denied the employee's request for benefits. Ms.
Silva timely filed a claim for trial.
During
the trial, the judge heard the testimony of the employee and
fellow West View employees, Kimberly Anderson and Cheryl
Edwards. Ms. Anderson was responsible for various
administrative matters such as accounts payable, preparing
paperwork for new hires, participating in safety committees,
and completing the paperwork for reporting work-related
injuries. Ms. Edwards is the Director of Nursing for the
employer.
The
relevant facts are not in significant dispute. On April 24,
2013, the employee began work at around 6:00 a.m. in
accordance with her usual schedule. At approximately 7:00
a.m., she was removing articles from a linen cart when
co-worker Dorina Lareira1 arrived. The employee stopped to greet
Ms. Lareira and, after a brief exchange, suffered her injury
due to Ms. Lareira's friendly but overly-vigorous hug
that lifted the employee off the ground. After feeling a
sharp pain around the left side of her ribs, the employee
asked Ms. Lareira to please put her down. Although accounts
of the circumstances prompting the hug differ slightly, the
employee's participation in the hug was
voluntary.2 The employee conceded that she was not
performing a specific job duty, such as patient care, at the
time of the incident.
Ms.
Silva resumed work for approximately one (1) hour following
the incident but continued to experience pain in the left rib
area. She reported the incident to her supervisor, Denise
Wade, and completed an incident report. The employee sought
medical treatment at Concentra after speaking with Ms.
Anderson. Personnel at Concentra performed x-rays, diagnosed
her with a chest wall contusion, and provided the employee
with a light duty note. The employee continued to experience
pain while working within the light duty restrictions. On
April 29, 2013, she was evaluated in the office of her
primary care physician, Dr. Pierre Manzo, who took the
employee out of work until May 6, 2013. The employee returned
to work at full duty on that date.
Ms.
Anderson testified that she was aware that employees
sometimes hugged residents and each other; however, there was
no program or policy to encourage or discourage such
activity. She explained that the employer generally
encouraged cooperation among its employees and had specific
programs in place to boost employee morale, such as
semiannual events to recognize the years of service of
employees.
Ms.
Edwards testified that on April 24, 2013, she was informed
that the employee and Ms. Lareira hugged as Ms. Lareira came
on the floor that day and later in the day the employee
complained of pain.
After
considering the testimony and the parties' memoranda, the
trial judge denied the employee's petition. While stating
that "an employer benefits when their workers are
collegial to each other," the trial judge "could
not find sufficient evidence to support the fact that the
employer was deriving a benefit by the exchange between the
employee and her...
