Eaton v. Sealol, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 July 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-590-A,81-590-A |
| Citation | 447 A.2d 1147 |
| Parties | Robert G. EATON v. SEALOL, INC. ppeal. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Slepkow, Slepkow & Rappoport, Stephen M. Rappoport, Providence, for petitioner.
Eldridge H. Henning, Jr., Providence, for respondent.
This case came before the court on an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. After reviewing the record and hearing arguments of counsel on May 25, 1982, we conclude that cause has not been shown.
Robert G. Eaton, the employee, has appealed from a decree of the Workers' Compensation Commission denying his petition to adjudge the employer, Sealol, Inc., in contempt for failing to make a timely payment of benefits.
While employed by Sealol, Eaton sustained a work-related injury. The trial commissioner rendered a written decision awarding compensation benefits to Eaton, and the decree was entered on January 30, 1980.
Sealol mailed its first payment check on February 19, 1980, the same day that Eaton filed this petition to adjudge Sealol in contempt for failing to follow the terms of the decree. Specifically, Eaton claims that Sealol's failure to comply with G.L.1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-35-43, which requires an employer to make its first payment within fourteen days of the effective date of the decree, entitled him to a penalty fee equal to 20 percent of the first payment.
The commission denied the petition, finding that Sealol had complied with § 28-35-43, even though the first payment was made nineteen calendar days after entry of the decree by the trial commissioner. In his appeal from this ruling, Eaton claims that the commission erroneously interpreted the phrase "the effective date of the order." We disagree.
The commission correctly determined that § 28-35-43 must be considered in conjunction with §§ 28-35-28 and 28-35-33. Section 28-35-28 provides that a person aggrieved by the trial commission's decree can appeal to the appellate commission within five days, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. Section 28-35-33 stays the effect of the trial commission's decree if either party appeals to the appellate commission.
It is true that the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act are to be construed liberally to effectuate its remedial purpose. Orthopedic Specialists v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 120 R.I. 378, 388 A.2d 352 (1978). However, § 28-35-43 is a penal statute enacted to ensure the prompt regular payment of weekly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stachowski v. Sysco
...where the board would otherwise have to impose late penalties under ALASKA STAT. § 23.30.155(e), (f) (2006)); Eaton v. Sealol, Inc., 447 A.2d 1147 (R.I.1982) (implicitly counting the date of mailing as the date the payment is made, avoiding the assessment of penalties against the insurer un......
-
State v. Bryant
...construed in favor of the party upon whom a penalty is to be imposed." State v. Calise, 478 A.2d 198, 200 (R.I.1984); Eaton v. Sealol, Inc., 447 A.2d 1147, 1148 (R.I.1982). Applying the foregoing canons of construction, we are of the opinion that the state did not prove a violation of the c......
-
Romaine v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
...v. Asarco, Inc., 126 Idaho 602, 888 P.2d 381 (1995); Meyers v. Holiday Express Corp., 557 N.W.2d 502 (Iowa 1996); Eaton v. Sealol, Inc., 447 A.2d 1147 (R.I.1982); Audobon Tree Serv. v. Childress, 2 Va.App. 35, 341 S.E.2d 211 (1986). 6. See Everett v. Kansas Power Co., 160 Kan. 712, 165 P.2d......
-
State v. Smith
...whom a penalty is to be imposed." Bryant, 670 A.2d at 779 (quoting State v. Calise, 478 A.2d 198, 200 (R.I. 1984); Eaton v. Sealol, Inc., 447 A.2d 1147, 1148 (R.I.1982)). Here, the statute provides that, in order to come within its purview, a defendant must have been previously convicted of......