Boudreau v. American Luggage Works, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-165-A,75-165-A |
| Parties | Doris BOUDREAU v. AMERICAN LUGGAGE WORKS, INC. ppeal. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This is an employee's original petition for compensation benefits. The petition alleges that the petitioner has been totally incapacitated for work since August 7, 1970, as a result of the peculiar characteristics of her employment with the respondent, American Luggage Works, Inc. The trial commissioner based his denial of the petition on the grounds (1) that it was barred by the applicable statute of limitations and (2) that in applying for employment with the respondent she had made certain false representations about her physical condition. The petitioner appealed to the full commission and after a hearing thereon the full commission entered a decree affirming the findings and orders of the trial commissioner. From that decree the petitioner is prosecuting the instant appeal.
This case has a long history, a brief discussion of which may be helpful to an understanding and resolution of the present appeal. The petitioner was originally injured on June 23, 1968, when she sustained an injury to her right arm while employed by R.J. Mfg. Co., Inc.
The condition of that arm resulted in five separate workmen's compensation proceedings, beginning on February 3, 1969, when petitioner filed an original petition in a proceeding entitled Doris Boudreau v. R.J. Mfg. Co., Inc., W.C.C. No. 69-0148. On May 2, 1969, a consent decree was entered in that case awarding benefits for total and partial incapacity commencing June 24, 1968.
Another proceeding was brought on November 13, 1969, when R.J. Mfg. Co., Inc. filed a petition to review under the caption R.J. Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Doris Boudreau, W.C.C. No. 69-1464. On February 19, 1970, a decree was entered in that proceeding authorizing the employer to suspend further payment of compensation benefits on the basis of the trial commissioner's finding that the employee was no longer incapacitated either in whole or in part. No appeal was taken.
On September 22, 1970, the third proceeding was commenced. This time petitioner filed an original petition for compensation benefits against respondent American Luggage Works, Inc., with whom she had commenced employment on February 18, 1970. The petition alleges that she had been incapacitated since August 7, 1970, as a result of an injury to her right hand on August 6, 1970, which she attributed to constant use of right wrist, hand and arm. The docket entries show that this petition was heard on November 9, 1970, continued twice and then withdrawn on March 1, 1971.
On February 26, 1971, 3 days before the petition against American Luggage was withdrawn, petition filed an employee's petition to review the February 19, 1970 decree suspending payments peviously ordered in the May 2, 1969 consent decree. This petition, entitled Doris Boudreau v. R.J. Mfg. Co., Inc., W.C.C. No. 71-0282, alleged that petitioner's incapacity for work returned on August 6, 1970, as a result of the injury set forth in the original consent decree.
At the hearings before the trial commissioner on this petition, W.C.C. No. 71-0282, Dr. Henry M. Litchman, an orthopedic surgeon, stated that in his opinion the work at American Luggage was not good for her and that it brought on an aggravation of her previous injury. At the same hearing Dr. Joseph Izzi, after stating in direct examination that the incapacity he found on May 19, 1971 was related to the original injury in June 1968, indicated on cross-examination that perhaps her incapacity was due to an aggravation of a preexisting condition brought on by her work at American Luggage. The record also includes a report by Dr. Stanley D. Simon which indicates that petitioner did, in fact, have an increase in symptoms while working for American Luggage.
In his decision the trial commissioner stated that he was inclined to agree with Dr. Izzi's opinion as stated in cross-examination 'that this would have to be considered an aggravation of her condition.' On the basis of the opinions of Drs. Litchman, Izzi and Simon, the trial commissioner found as a fact '(t) hat any incapacity of the petitioner, total or partial, subsequent to August 6, 1970, was in no way due to, connected with or flowed from the original injury of the petitioner of June 23, 1968.' Accordingly he denied and dismissed the petition and a decree to that effect was subsequently entered.
On appeal, the full commission affirmed the finding of the trial commissioner. It entered a new decree incorporating the finding of the trial commissioner with the additional finding that:
'The petitioner failed to prove that her incapacity for work, if any, beginning August 6, 1970 increased or returned due to the effects and consequences of the injury to such right arm sustained on June 23, 1968 as recited in the decree dated May 2, 1969.'
The petitioner appealed to this court on the ground that the full commission's decree was against the law and the evidence. We affirmed the decree entered by the full commission and, accordingly, on February 8, 1974, denied and dismissed petitioner's appeal. Boudreau v. R.J. Mfg. Co., 112 R.I. 683, 314 A.2d 428 (1974).
On March 14, 1974, petitioner filed the instant petition for benefits against American Luggage Works, Inc. This is her second original petition against this respondent and is entitled Doris Boudreau v. American Luggage Works, Inc., W.C.C. No. 74-0388. In this petition she again alleges that she has been incapacitated since August 7, 1970, as the result of an injury to her right hand, but this time she alleges it was due to stapling with her right hand.
The respondent's defense before the trial commissioner was that petitioner's claim was barred by the statute of limitations, G.L.1956 (1968 Reenactment) § 28-35-57 and by § 28-34-7, which bars compensation to those who wilfully and falsely represent in writing that they had not previously suffered from the disease for which they seek compensation.
In his decision denying and dismissing the instant petition the trial commissioner, after discussing the travel of the prior proceedings, stated that it was clear that the instant petition was filed more than 3 years after petitioner's incapacity began as a result of her injury. He also referred to petitioner's earlier case against R.J. Mfg. Co., Inc., where Dr. Litchman testified on January 12, 1972 that petitioner was incapacitated because of her excessive activity at her employment with American Luggage. After noting that Dr. Litchman's testimony was given over 2 years prior to the filing of the instant petition, the trial commissioner noted that '(t)hat in and of itself clearly could not have but informed the petitioner that she was disabled by reason of her employment with the respondent.' He then concluded that '* * * the petitioner clearly must be charged with the knowledge that her disability which began on August 7, 1970, was due to the peculiar characteristics of her employment with respondent and that she had such knowledge for more than two years before the filing of the instant petition.'
On appeal by petitioner, the full commission affirmed the trial commissioner's finding that petitioner's claim was barred by the statute of limitations and added that it was satisfied that petitioner had reason to know of her legal rights '* * * at least on two occasions, that is, upon the entry of the decree of the trial commissioner and the entry of the decree of the Full Commission, both decrees being a judicial determination of her petition.' Since that conclusion was dispositive of petitioner's appeal, the full commission did not deem it necessary to discuss or consider petitioner's challenge of the trial commissioner's second finding of fact. Since we agree with the full commission's affirmance of the trial commissioner's finding that petitioner's claim was barred by the statute of limitations, we too find it unnecessary to discuss petitioner's arguments about the second finding.
Thus the only question before us is whether the commission erred in finding that petitioner's claim against the present respondent is barred by the statute of limitations, § 28-35-57, which provides as follows:
'Limitation of claims for compensation.-An employee's claim for compensation under chapters 29 to 38, inclusive, of this title shall be barred unless an agreement or a petition, as provided in this chapter, shall be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ochoa v. Union Camp Corp.
...within the time limit he can litigate it at any time he desires. We had a similar situation before us in Boudreau v. American Luggage Works, Inc., 117 R.I. 548, 368 A.2d 1189 (1977), but in that case we did not have to face squarely, as we do here, whether a discontinuance by the commission......