Cambrola v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 77-364-A

• Decision Date: 15 July 1980
• Docket Number: No. 77-364-A,77-364-A
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Parties: Joseph V. CAMBROLA, Jr. v. KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORP. ppeal.

Page 694

416 A.2d 694

Joseph V. CAMBROLA, Jr. v. KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORP.

No. 77-364-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 15, 1980.

Raul Lovett, Providence, for petitioner.

Bruce Morin, Providence, for respondent.

OPINION

KELLEHER, Justice.

This is an employee's appeal from a decree of the Workers' Compensation Commission vacating a decree of a trial commissioner which set aside an agreement calling for the suspension of compensation benefits on the ground that the agreement was obtained by fraud. Hereinafter we shall refer to the employee as "Cambrola" and the employer as "Kaiser."

On January 29, 1971, a forklift truck rolled onto Cambrola's left foot, causing an "extensive bruise." Later, in February of 1971, Cambrola and Kaiser entered into a preliminary agreement whereby Cambrola was to receive compensation benefits for the duration of his total incapacity. When Cambrola returned to work in April of 1971, Kaiser terminated all benefits. Five years later, Cambrola was on the job when Michael Ferrara (Ferrara), Kaiser's safety supervisor, came by and, according to Cambrola, asked him whether he was going to attend a forthcoming meeting of the board of directors of the employees' credit union. Ferrara also explained to Cambrola that he, Ferrara, had "taken over Jim Travis's job." Some of Travis's unfinished chores included the execution of a number of so-called suspension agreements with employees such as Cambrola who, after receiving weekly compensation benefits, had returned to work at Kaiser at a salary equal to, or perhaps greater than, that which they had been receiving at the time of their injuries.

Once Ferrara finished talking about the upcoming directors' meeting, he presented Cambrola with a paper that Travis "was supposed to have you sign." Cambrola signed the paper, assuming that it had to do with some partial compensation payments due him for some other injury. Actually, Cambrola had signed an agreement calling for the suspension ¹ as of April 1971 of all compensation payments due him as the result of the January 1971 encounter with the forklift. Cambrola testified that following the obtaining of his signature, Ferrara advised him, "(T)his won't bar any claims in the future." The agreement was subsequently approved by the director of labor.

At the hearing before the trial commissioner, Cambrola conceded that he had taken a number of business-related courses at Brown University and the University of Rhode Island. He blamed his predicament on his failure to have his reading glasses with him at the work station and Ferrara's lack of any explanation in regard to what the paper was all about.

Ferrara's version of what happened at the signing differed completely from the picture presented by Cambrola. He denied that they initially discussed credit-union affairs or that he failed to explain the agreement. Ferrara testified that he had told Cambrola that he had an outstanding suspension agreement that required his signature. He both described and read the contents of the document to Cambrola, explaining that the agreement would not foreclose any future claims if a future incident arose out of the injury.

In his decision, the trial commissioner noted that there was a "direct conflict of evidence" in which "(b)oth parties appear(ed) worthy of belief as they were testifying." The commissioner noted that "Ferrara has testified before this commission on many occasions and I have always found him to be above reproach." However, he determined that the agreement was procured by fraud on the basis of the following information that was not placed into evidence by either party:

"(T)here is one fact which to my mind must control my decision in this case. That is, that for the past year or so, innumerable petitions have been filed by employees of the Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Company alleging that the Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Company was in contempt for failure to continue to pay compensation under the provisions of outstanding preliminary agreements. Apparently James Travis failed to have compensation settlement receipts executed in many cases where an employee had returned to work and unilaterally suspended further payment of compensation without legal justification. It is inconceivable to me that the petitioner (Cambrola) did not know of the fact that such cases had been filed and were pending, especially in view of the various official capacities he held as an employee of Kaiser * * *." ²

In rejecting the trial commissioner's finding of fraud, the full commission determined...