Balcom v. Providence Sheraton Corp.
| Decision Date | 01 July 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 3156,3156 |
| Citation | 201 A.2d 913,98 R.I. 357 |
| Parties | Everett C. BALCOM v. PROVIDENCE SHERATON CORPORATION. Eq. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Joseph A. Kelly, Providence, for petitioner.
DiMascolo & DiPetrillo, Anthony DiPetrillo, Carmine R. DiPetrillo, Providence, for respondent.
This is an employee's petition to review a preliminary agreement for workmen's compensation. The cause is here on his appeal from a decree of the workmen's compensation commission denying and dismissing the petition.
It appears from the preliminary agreement that petitioner sustained an injury to his 'right leg between knee and ankle' on October 25, 1958 and was awarded compensation therefor commencing on that date for the 'Duration of total incapacity.' For a brief period thereafter petitioner received compensation under such agreement until he returned to work for another employer. However, in 1962 he filed a petition to review the agreement on the ground that his incapacity had returned. By decree of the full commission entered June 5, 1963 affirming the trial commissioner's decree of November 13, 1962, such petition was denied and dismissed.
The instant petition for review was filed on June 31 (sic), 1963 and was heard originally by the trial commissioner on October 8 and 16, 1963. At such hearing petitioner testified in support of his petition that he had not worked since June 5, 1963; that he was unable to stand on his right leg; that he had pains therein and could not for any length of time walk, stand or sit because thereof; and that he was not able to sleep nights on such account. He testified further that he was unable to do his former job in respondent's employ. On cross-examination he admitted that this was the condition to which he testified at the hearing on his former petition for review except that the pain was more frequent.
In further support of his petition he called Dr. Julius Stoll, Jr., who had examined him originally in October 1961 and had testified at the former hearing. The doctor also made two later examinations on May 24, 1962 and on February 11, 1963. He testified that on the latter examination he found the condition of petitioner's right leg and ankle was such that he was totally disabled. He examined him again on August 15, 1963 and found his condition the same and that petitioner was unable to work at his job as elevator operater for respondent.
On cross-examination the doctor admitted that he had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ryan v. Grinnell Corp.
...change of condition since the previous decree. Vigneau v. Grinnell Corp., 100 R.I. 453, 216 A.2d 891 (1966); Balcom v. Providence Sheraton Corp., 98 R.I. 357, 201 A.2d 913 (1964). The commission found that the evidence introduced in support of the petition, although unconstradicted, was ins......
-
Beaupre v. Dynachem Corp., 73-116-A
...it is not before us for review. See Builders Iron Works, Inc. v. Murphy, 104 R.I. 637, 247 A.2d 839 (1968); Balcom v. Providence Sheraton Corp., 98 R.I. 357, 201 A.2d 913 (1964). In his appeal to the full commission, petitioner claimed that the decree of the trial commissioner was against t......
-
Belanger v. Weaving Corp. of America
...9, 1974, and continuing to the present. See Vigneau v. Grinnell Corp., 100 R.I. 453, 216 A.2d 891 (1966); Balcom v. Providence Sheraton Corp., 98 R.I. 357, 201 A.2d 913 (1964); section 28-35-45. The petitioner cites similar cases in which evidence of an employee's physical condition prior t......
-
Builders Iron Works, Inc. v. Murphy
...gave no heed to them and they are not, therefore, before us. Moniz v. F. D. McGinn, Inc., R.I., 230 A.2d 837; Balcom v. Providence Sheraton Corp., 98 R.I. 357, 201 A.2d 913. At the full commission level the case was considered as if the dispositive issue were whether or not the employee cou......