Campisani v. Sun Dial Optical Co., 2150
| Decision Date | 08 May 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 2150,2150 |
| Citation | 96 A.2d 582,80 R.I. 307 |
| Parties | CAMPISANI v. SUN DIAL OPTICAL CO. Equity |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Angelo Caldarone and Aram A. Arabian, Providence, for petitioner.
Eugene J. Sullivan, Jr., Providence, for respondent.
This is an original petition brought under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, General Laws 1938, chapter 300, to obtain compensation and certain expenses following an alleged injury to petitioner. After a hearing in the superior court a decree was entered awarding her compensation, medical and incidental expenses, and from the entry of that decree respondent duly prosecuted its appeal to this court.
The trial justice embodied in the decree the following findings of fact, namely, that on March 14, 1951 petitioner, while in the course of her employment by respondent, sustained an injury by accident which resulted in her total disability; that at the time of the entry of the decree she was still totally disabled from such injury; that notice thereof was given to respondent in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act; and that petitioner's average weekly wage at the time of her injury was $32.
The petitioner testified in substance that on the morning of March 14, 1951 she was working as a tapper in respondent's plant on the third floor of a building in the city of Providence. About thirty-eight employees were present that day. A sudden explosion occurred in the plant, excitement ensued, and everyone ran for the exit. When the door was opened all the employees rushed out and petitioner was knocked down and trampled upon. She was helped to her feet and down the stairs. She became hysterical when she reached the street and was taken to her home. Her injuries are described in the petition as back injury, contusions of the arms, legs, breast and body, and a nervous condition. The next day she was examined by Dr. George J. Dwyer, who treated her for several weeks and then referred her to Dr. Americo A. Savastano, an orthopedic physician who was attending her at the time of the trial. At that time her back was still seriously troubling her but the other injuries had cleared up. She had not hurt her back in any manner prior to March 14, 1951 and its condition previously had never prevented her from being employed. She has not worked since the day of the accident.
A report of Dr. Dwyer on petitioner's condition was placed in evidence and Dr. Savastano testified for her, stating among other things that he first saw her April 27, 1951; that he received a history of the accident; that she complained of constant pain in her lower back reaching as far up as her shoulders which required her to rest frequently; that bending, lifting and prolonged sitting increased her pain; and that she had recurrent headaches. The doctor treated her with physiotherapy, provided her with a canvas back support, and later ordered a steel brace and instructed her how to use a bed board.
Thereafter when pain and numbness developed in one of her legs the doctor had her admitted to a hospital where a myelogram test was made in October 1951. He testified that it revealed 'an incomplete filling of the nerve root sheath between the fifth lumbar and first sacral vertebra on the right side * * *.' In his judgment this situation together with pain in her leg is 'fairly good evidence of a ruptured intervertebral disc.' He also testified: In answer to a question regarding her attempting to work he said: 'I consider her totally disabled at the present time' due to the injury she received in the accident of March 14, 1951. The doctor further testified that he found in petitioner's back evidence of spondylolisthesis, a congenital anomaly or malformation whereby one vertebra is slipped forward on another usually at the lumbosacral joint. Since petitioner had given no history of any previous back pain, in his opinion the above-described condition in and of itself would not cause or affect the disability from which she was suffering after the accident.
No medical evidence was introduced by respondent. It argues, first, that the trial justice committed error in allowing certain testimony to be introduced over its objection. An examination of the record constrains us to hold that respondent is not in a position to press that argument. The fifth reason of appeal reads as follows: 'Said Decree is erroneous in that the Trial Justice erred in admitting certain testimony during...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeMarco v. M.A. Gammino Const. Co.
...to the hearing so that the case may be decided on its merits as expeditiously as reasonably possible. See Campisani v. Sun Dial Optical Co., 80 R.I. 307, 311, 96 A.2d 582, 584 (1953). We are therefore of the opinion that the trial commissioner was correct in not dismissing the petition beca......
-
Brown & Sharpe Mfg. Co. v. Lavoie, 2361
...on appeal only by a reason of appeal stating specifically the matter determined adversely to the appellant. Campisani v. Sun Dial Optical Co., 80 R.I. 307, 96 A.2d 582. And the same is true under the present statute. P.L.1954, chapter 3297, art. III, §§ 3(g), The respondent's second content......
-
Warwick Brass Foundry Co. v. Universal Winding Co., 3034
...that occurred during the hearing below. Harding v. Imperial Printing & Finishing Co., 45 R.I. 416, 123 A. 559. In Campisani v. Sun Dial Optical Co., 80 R.I. 307, 96 A.2d 582, we considered whether the statutory requirement was satisfied by a reason of appeal stating that the 'Trial Justice ......