 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Trant v. Lucent Technologies12/31/2004
DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This matter is before the Appellate Division on the petitioner/employee's appeal from the decision and decree of the trial judge denying his request for a cost-of-living adjustment (hereinafter "COLA") for the year 2002. After reviewing the record and considering the arguments of the parties, we deny the appeal and affirm the decision and decree of the trial judge.
A consent decree entered in W.C.C. No. 00-05201 on April 6, 2001 established that the employee sustained injuries to his right ear, right arm and right hand, as well as post-traumatic stress syndrome, on July 26, 2000. The employee was totally disabled from July 27, 2000 through August 23, 2000 and partially disabled from August 24, 2000 and continuing. On October 10, 2001, a pretrial order was entered in W.C.C. 01-06459 which found that the employee's incapacity had increased to total incapacity as of May 25, 2001 and that he had also injured his neck on July 26, 2000.
The employee filed this petition on March 19, 2004 alleging that the employer had failed to pay him COLAs for the years 2002 and 2003 in accordance with R.I.G.L. ยง 28-33-17(f)(1).
At the pretrial conference, the trial judge ordered the employer to pay the COLA for the year 2003 plus a twenty percent (20%) penalty. He denied the request for a COLA for 2002. The employee claimed a trial in a timely manner.
The parties presented the following stipulation of facts:
"1. The employee was injured on July 26, 2000 which injuries were right ear, right arm, right hand and post-traumatic stress syndrome. These injuries had been established by Consent Decree dated April 6, 2001. A pre-trial order dated October 10, 2001 enlarged the covered parts of the body to include "neck" in the description of the injury.
"2. The Consent Decree dated April 6, 2001, found that as a result of the employee's injury he became totally disabled from July 27, 2000 through to August 23, 2000 and continuing partial thereafter. A subsequent pre-trial order dated October 10, 2001 found that the employee's incapacity increased to total and ordered that the employee receive benefits for total incapacity from May 25, 2001 and continuing.
"3. The employee filed a petition alleging that the employer had failed to pay COLA.
"4. The matter was heard before the Court and the employer was ordered to pay the COLA for 2003 plus a 20% penalty to the employee. The Court allowed the employer to deduct these monies from an outstanding credit which the employee owes the employer.
"5. The Court denied any COLA for the year 2002.
"6. The employee timely claimed a trial on the issue of the denial on the 2002 COLA. The employer did not claim a trial on the granting of the payment for the COLA of 2003.
"The only issue before the Trial Court is whether or not the employee is entitled to a COLA for the year 2002. The parties will file Memoranda arguing respective positions."
The trial judge reviewed the statute in question and concluded that the employee was not entitled to a COLA for 2002 because he had not been totally disabled for fifty-two (52) consecutive weeks prior to May 10, 2002. He, therefore, affirmed his pretrial order and denied the request for the 2002 COLA. The employee has appealed this decision, arguing that the statute does not require that the period of total disability must be fifty-two (52) consecutive weeks. We have reviewed the statute in question and the facts of this case and conclude that the trial judge was correct in his application of the statute to this case.
The pertinent portions of the
Page 1 2 3 4 Rhode Island Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|