 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Impulse Packaging3/31/2005
In this Workers' Compensation case, we are called upon to determine whether the Appellate Division of the Workers' Compensation Court properly dismissed the petitioner's appeal when it found that her reasons of appeal lacked the specificity required by statute and the court's rules of practice and procedure. The petitioner, Laureana S. Sicajan, argues that her appeal to the Appellate Division was in keeping with the norm for such appeals and that her memorandum in support of reasons of appeal should be considered amendatory to her reasons of appeal, especially in light of the fact that the two documents were stapled together. Finally, she argues that the Appellate Division's refusal to allow her to amend her reasons of appeal was an unduly harsh and drastic result that deprived her of due process of law. On November 20, 2003, this Court granted Sicajan's petition for certiorari to review the Appellate Division's denial and dismissal of her appeal for failure to file reasons of appeal that comply with the specificity requirements of G.L. 1956 § 28-35-28(a). For the reasons set forth herein, we quash the final decree of the Appellate Division and hold that although the court was well within its discretion to reject petitioner's reasons of appeal, justice requires a result less draconian than summary dismissal.
Facts and Procedural History
In November 1997, while performing her duties as a machine operator for her employer, Impulse Packaging, Sicajan injured her left hand when the "boxing" machine with which she was working misfired, resulting in the partial amputation of her ring and long fingers. Surgery was performed in September 1998, and after she continued to complain of problems with the injured digits, Sicajan sought a second opinion from a different physician, who discussed additional surgery as a means of alleviating her discomfort. Sicajan returned to Impulse in early November 2000, when she began working at a suitable alternative employment (SAE) position as an assembler. At trial, Sicajan testified that she was able to do this job because assembly work did not aggravate her hand injuries. Unfortunately, in December of that year, Sicajan was injured in a non-work-related automobile accident and again left her position at Impulse because of the resulting injuries. In May 2001, despite receiving authorization from her chiropractor that she could safely return to work, Sicajan was told that there no longer was any position available for her at Impulse Packaging.
Before addressing the journey the parties took through the Workers' Compensation Court, and the petition for certiorari, it is important to note the initial process in which the parties engaged as they addressed Sicajan's rights under the workers' compensation laws. Soon after Sicajan's injury, the parties entered into a memorandum of agreement dated December 18, 1997, pursuant to § 28-35-1, which established the injury as a left third and fourth digit distal flanks amputation, placed Sicajan on partial incapacity, and established an average weekly wage of $240.02. For various periods of time she received benefits for either total or partial incapacity.
At present, Sicajan receives nothing in the form of benefits for incapacity, although she was awarded benefits for disfigurement and loss.
Eventually, both parties sought further judicial intervention. Impulse Packaging filed a petition with the Workers' Compensation Court, alleging that Sicajan's incapacity for work had ceased, seeking to suspend her benefits for refusing suitable alternative employment, and requesting that the court set an earning capacity based upon Sicajan's alleged refusal and later termination of an SAE positi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Rhode Island Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|