Mascio v. Kaufman Development Corp., 2628
| Decision Date | 25 February 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 2628,2628 |
| Citation | 87 R.I. 141,139 A.2d 92 |
| Parties | Anthony MASCIO v. KAUFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. Eq. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Arcaro & Belilove, Abraham Belilove, Providence, for petitioner.
Higgins, Cavanagh & Williamson, Joseph V. Cavanagh, Joseph C. Johnston, Jr., Providence, for respondent.
This is an employee's original petition for compensation under the workmen's compensation act. The case was heard by a single commissioner, who thereafter found that the petitioner injured his back on May 4, 1956; that he was totally incapacitated from May 8 to May 24, 1956 on which date he recovered from the injury; and that any disability subsequent to May 24, 1956 was not due to the injury of May 4, 1956. The petitioner appealed the decree of the single commissioner to the full commission which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner had recovered from the injury of May 4, 1956 and had returned to work on May 29, 1956. The full commission affirmed the decree of the single commissioner as thus modified. The case is before us on the petitioner's appeal from that decree.
There is no dispute that petitioner was employed by respondent on Friday, May 4, 1956, and on that day was assisting his foreman to remove wooden forms into which cement had been poured. Neither is it substantially disputed that while so engaged petitioner sustained an injury to his lower back. The commission found that this injury resulted in total incapacity from which petitioner had recovered completely on May 29, 1956, and compensation for total incapacity has been paid petitioner up to that date. As above stated, the commission also found that any disability from which he suffered subsequent to May 29, 1956 was not a result of the injury sustained on May 4, 1956. The question presented to us by petitioner is whether this latter finding is supported by legal evidence. It is now well settled that findings of the workmen's compensation commission, when supported by legal evidence, are conclusive and binding upon this court and that on appeals from decrees of the commission we are without authority to weigh the evidence. Catoia v. Eastern Concrete Products Co., R.I., 124 A.2d 864; Northrop v. Uncas Mfg. Co., R.I., 124 A.2d 876.
The petitioner testified that between 10 and 11 a. m. on Friday, May 4, while lifting one of the cement forms above described, he felt a pain in his back which he described as 'a sharp pain in my back and down to my legs.' He worked the rest of Friday, experiencing considerable pain, and on Monday he returned to work and worked through the day although he again felt severe pain, particularly while bending and lifting. On Tuesday, May 8, he again began to work and experienced substantial pain. He testified that about 3 p. m. on that day he was no longer able to stand the pain and he left work and went to the office of Dr. A. A. Savastano, an orthopedic surgeon in Providence.
Doctor Savastano saw petitioner on several occasions after May 8 and prescribed periodic therapy for his back condition. He testified that during this period the condition of petitioner's back improved substantially, but he further testified that on September 21, 1956 he found him to be totally disabled.
The petitioner testified that the day before Memorial Day 1956, that being May 29, he went to work as a laborer on a job in Ashton in this state and was required, among other things, to mix mortar for the use of masons, which he did with a hand shovel. According to his testimony he did this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferrucci v. Segrella
...may not do. The petitioner is not to be denied the benefit of a reasonable inference arising from the evidence. Mascio v. Kaufman Development Corp., 87 R.I. 141, 139 A.2d 92. The commission in this case properly exercised its fact-finding power and, therefore, its findings are conclusive an......
-
Vigneau v. Grinnell Corp.
...found no change in his capacity to work from what he had found on his previous examination on January 15, 1963. Mascio v. Kaufman Development Corp., 87 R.I. 141, 139 A.2d 92, cited by the employee, is not in point and therefore requires no consideration. The employee has failed to persuade ......
-
Shurick v. Ames Am. Co., 3046
...the commission could reasonably infer that among all the ailments the aggravated emphysema was the dominant one. Mascio v. Kaufman Development Corp., 87 R.I. 141, 139 A.2d 92. From our examination of the transcript we are of the opinion that there is evidence from which the commission could......