DiFiore v. U.S. Rubber Co.

• Decision Date: 30 March 1951
• Docket Number: No. 2045,2045
• Citation: 78 R.I. 124,79 A.2d 925
• Parties: DI FIORE v. UNITED STATES RUBBER CO. Eq.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 925

79 A.2d 925

78 R.I. 124

DI FIORE v. UNITED STATES RUBBER CO.

Eq. No. 2045.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

March 30, 1951.

Michael Addeo, Maurice, W. Hendel, Providence, for petitioner.

Sherwood & Clifford, Sidney Clifford and Raymond E. Jordan, all of Providence, for respondent.

CONDON, Justice.

This petition for workmen's compensation was heard and granted by the superior court and a decree was duly entered awarding petitioner compensation for total incapacity. General Laws 1938, chapter 300. From that decree respondent has appealed to this court.

Under its appeal respondent contends that the decree is erroneous on the following grounds: First, there is no legal evidence that the alleged accident preceded petitioner's injury; second, there is no legal evidence that such accident was the proximate cause of his injury; and third, the trial justice misconceived and misunderstood the purport of the evidence concerning the alleged accident. Respondent argues that if this court sustains any one of those contentions the superior court's decree should be reversed and a decree entered denying and dismissing the petition.

Petitioner was employed as a trucker in respondent's plant. One of his regular duties was to lift rolls of 'liner cloth' from the floor and place them on a truck about twelve inches high. Such rolls varied in weight from 200 to 250 pounds each. Petitioner had been doing this work for many years without any serious injury to his back at least since 1943. However, on July 27, 1948 he injured his back so severely that he required medical attention immediately and thereafter hospital treatment. He was later given a 'myelogram test' which proved negative but subsequently an exploratory operation established that he had two ruptured intervertebral discs, one on the right side of the lumbosacral joint and one between the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae. It is undisputed that such injury arose out of and in the course of his employment and that he is at present totally incapacitated notwithstanding a successful operation on the ruptured discs. Respondent, however, has declined to enter into an agreement to pay petitioner compensation, substantially because of a lack of evidence that he was injured as a result of a compensable accident. On July 27, 1948 the statute required petitioner to prove not only that he sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment but also that such injury was caused by accident.

The controversy between the parties on this phase of the case stems almost wholly from two different interpretations of petitioner's testimony as to how he was injured. The trial justice's interpretation, as it appears from his decision, is: 'I find as a fact that this accident happened as this petitioner described it, that he slipped, fell, and was hurt, and that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment.' Respondent argues that he erred in so interpreting the testimony. It contends that the only reasonable interpretation of such sentence is that petitioner lifted the roll, hurt his back and then went down on his right foot because of the injury. In other words, the contention is that the accident, if there was one, did not precede and cause the injury but was itself an effect of the injury rather than the cause.

If such contention of the respondent is sound it would raise a question of law, namely, that there was no evidence to support the trial justice's finding, and would be decisive of its appeal. We have assumed here that respondent claims its interpretation of the sentence is the only reasonable one, because if it is a question merely as to which of two interpretations is the more reasonable the issue would not be one of law but of fact with which in workmen's compensation cases this court has nothing to do. We have, therefore, carefully considered the testimony in question and are of the opinion that respondent's interpretation is not the only reasonable one.

Petitioner testified that after having lifted three rolls and placed them on his truck the accident happened while he was handling a fourth roll. He testified in this manner: 'After I picked up the fourth one then slipped it out of my hands. It was wet and the floor wet, so after I fall it on the floor and I went to pick it up again and I slipped with the right foot, go down the right foot, and I hurt my back, a big crack in the back.' While it may be arguable that such language submits to the interpretation advanced by respondent it clearly does not preclude another reasonable interpretation, namely, that the petitioner's slipping on his right foot preceded and caused the injury to his back. Obviously petitioner lacked facility in expressing himself in the English language, but nevertheless it seems to us that a reasonable reconstruction of his testimony might be made as follows: 'After I picked up the fourth one then it slipped out of my hands. It was wet and the floor was wet so that when I went to pick it up again, after I let it fall on the floor, I slipped and went down on my right foot and hurt my back--a big crack in the back.' We think the trial justice's interpretation was reasonable and therefore there was some evidence that the accident preceded the injury.

However, respondent complains that such an interpretation is not consistent with other testimony of the petitioner in which he admits that in giving the plant nurse and the doctor who operated on him a history of the injury he did not mention that he had slipped. The purpose of this argument in connection with respondent's...