Gilbane Bldg. Co. v. Feeney, 2573
| Decision Date | 23 October 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 2573,2573 |
| Citation | 86 R.I. 385,135 A.2d 262 |
| Parties | GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY v. Bartlett F. FEENEY. Eq. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Hinckley, Allen, Salisbury & Parsons, Thomas J. Hogan, Joseph H. Gainer, Jr., Providence, for petitioner.
Murphy, Morriss & McKenna, Providence, for respondent.
This is a workmen's compensation case in which an employer filed a notice of intention to reduce the payment of compensation to an injured employee for total disability to the maximum payment for partial disability as provided for in General Laws 1938, chapter 300, as amended by Public Laws 1954, chapter 3297, article III, sec. 12.
It is not disputed that the respondent, while employed as a laborer by the petitioner, on October 1, 1954 was injured when he fell down a flight of stairs at a housing construction project. A preliminary agreement was entered into by the parties whereby the employee was paid compensation for total disability. The injury was described in the agreement as 'Major bony spur, right os calcis.' After a hearing before a single commissioner a decree was entered on June 25, 1956 wherein he made the following findings of fact:
From this decree petitioner appealed to the full commission which, after a hearing, filed a decision in writing. An examination of such decision reveals that the full commission passed only upon the issue of whether petitioner had sustained the burden of proving that the employee's total disability had ended or diminished and, finding that petitioner had not so provided, they declined to pass upon the finding of the single commissioner concerning the applicability of the 'odd lot' doctrine. In the decision the commission further stated that they found no error in the single commissioner's finding of fact numbered 1, that is, that the employee continued to be totally disabled, but made no finding relative to the finding of fact numbered 2. Thereupon the full commission on October 25, 1956 entered a decree wherein they affirmed both findings of fact. From this decree petitioner has appealed to this court. The pertinent part of such decree reads as follows: 'The findings of fact and the orders contained in a decree of this commission entered on June 25, 1956 be, and they hereby are affirmed.'
The petitioner contends that the full commission were in error when they refused to review the correctness of the finding of the single commissioner that the 'odd lot' doctrine was applicable to the employee's case. We do not agree. It is our opinion that in the circumstances here a finding on the applicability of the 'odd lot' doctrine was immaterial to the decision and we know of nothing in those provisions of the act, which on appeal authorizes the full commission to review the findings of a dingle commissioner, that requires such a review of findings which are not material to the decision.
The petition which we are considering here is in effect a petition to review the total incapacity of an employee. Such petitions we have held raise only one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gamco, Inc. v. Shea, 2668
...review and raises only the issue 'whether the respondent has ceased to be totally disabled by reason of his injury.' Gilbane Building Co. v. Feeney, R.I., 135 A.2d 262, 264. There is no evidence to prove that allegation nor is there, in our opinion, any evidence tending to prove that this e......
-
Enterprise Dye Works, Inc. v. Guilfoyle
...worked and received wages as disclosed by the wage transcripts. The petitioner relies on certain language in Gilbane Building Co. v. Feeney, 86 R.I. 385, 388, 135 A.2d 262 and Gamco, Inc. v. Shea, 88 R.I. 419, 424, 149 A.2d 346, to support its contention that the instant proceeding should b......
- C. W. Stuart & Co. v. Pezza, 9806