 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Webster v. Perotta6/27/2001
The judgment obtained by plaintiff Ferrante is vacated and the case is remanded for trial. Denied and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs from the denial of prejudgment interest. The papers in this case remanded to the Superior Court.
Williams, C. J., Lederberg, Bourcier, Concurring.
Flanders, Justice, dissenting.
These consolidated cases came before the Supreme Court on May 7, 2001, on appeal from default judgments entered in the Superior Court in favor of Earl H. Webster (Webster), Ruth V. Bolton (Bolton) , Stephen J. Riccitelli (Riccitelli), and Vincent J. Ferranti, Sr. (Ferranti or plaintiffs) and against the Town of Johnston (defendant or town). Specifically, the town has appealed the imposition of a monetary judgment made after the default of defendant in this case.
Facts and Travel
The plaintiffs are former officers of the Johnston Police Department who sought wages and benefits, including any cost of living increases, wage increases, uniform allowances and similar benefits, and interests and costs from the date of their respective retirements to the present. It is undisputed that plaintiffs were employed as police officers for the town. Each plaintiff retired from the force because of an illness or injury alleged in the complaint to have been suffered or contracted in the line of duty. At the time each plaintiff retired, a valid and enforceable provision of their respective union contract provided that "all members of the police department who are injured or contact illness in the line of duty shall receive benefits in conformity with" G.L. 1956 § 45-19-1, often referred to as the Injured on Duty (IOD) provision. The plaintiffs all voluntarily retired, in some cases left employment over three decades ago, and have received pension payments from the town since the date of their retirement. These pension amounts are less than 100 percent of the salary, wages, and benefits plaintiffs would have received had they not retired but remained as police officers. Further, by the fact of the default, it is not contested that the injuries or illnesses contracted by the plaintiffs were suffered in the line of duty and necessitated their retirements.
In 1997, three plaintiffs sued the town, through the named defendants, seeking recovery for the salary, wages, and benefits, including uniform stipends and dry cleaning expenses, that they alleged the town owed to them pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 45-19-1. The fourth plaintiff claimed he was owed the same compensation, but his claim was based on the collective bargaining agreement. The town's performance with respect to these lawsuits was less than satisfactory and led to the default judgments. The plaintiffs served the town with requests for admissions, requests for production of documents and interrogatories. The defendant never answered any of these requests, at which time plaintiffs filed motions to compel. No objections to these motions were made and accordingly, they were granted in the Superior Court. Conditional orders of default were subsequently issued in each of the four cases pursuant to Rule 37 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the town continued to ignore the requests and subsequent orders to compel discovery, default judgments were entered in each of these cases by two justices of the Superior Court. However, each judgment was entitled "Final Judgment" and proceeded to set forth not only the liability of the town but also included a mandate that the town "shall immediately begin to pay [each plaintiff] each month, and continue to pay him until his death, 100% of the salary and benefits, including longevity, holiday pay, clothing allowances and maintenance a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Rhode Island Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|