Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island; June 28, 1984; Rhode Island; State Supreme Court
Pierce Buick, Inc. appeals a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission, which reversed a trial commissioner’s ruling that denied Joseph Afonso's petition for workers’ compensation benefits. The commission ordered compensation for Afonso’s total disability effective August 19, 1980. In response, the employer sought a stay of the commission's decree pending appeal, which the court granted while denying Afonso's motion to dismiss the appeal.
Afonso, employed as a car salesman for nearly three years, claimed he sustained a lower-back injury during his employment. His petition for benefits requested total disability compensation starting October 20, 1980, along with medical benefits and counsel fees. Afonso reported two incidents leading to his injury: one from slipping on ice at the workplace and another from falling down stairs in August 1980. After experiencing worsening back pain following the second incident, he sought treatment from Dr. Walter Cotter, who had treated him for a prior back issue.
During the hearing, Afonso provided testimony and mentioned a co-worker, James Moretti, who allegedly witnessed the fall. However, Afonso's account conflicted during cross-examination when he stated that Moretti did not assist him after the fall. Moretti later testified about witnessing Afonso's fall but revealed that a prior signed statement to an insurance investigator was inaccurate and made under duress due to job security concerns.
The witness left the employer's business in March 1981. Insurance representative Amato testified that Moretti was reluctant to sign a statement but did so after Amato threatened to testify against him if he refused. Dr. Cotter, in an affidavit, claimed that the employee aggravated a preexisting back condition from a fall at work in August 1980, requiring surgery, and stated the employee was totally disabled as of September 1, 1980. However, during cross-examination, Dr. Cotter revealed he was unaware of the fall until December 16, 1980, and had initially thought the issue was a recurrence of an old injury. The trial commissioner concluded, based on Moretti's testimony and prior statement, that Moretti did not witness the employee's fall. Moretti's assertion of duress was not convincing to the commissioner, and Dr. Cotter's contradictory testimony raised doubts about the injury's cause. Consequently, the employee's petition was denied due to insufficient credible evidence. Upon appeal, the appellate commission reversed this decision, finding the trial commissioner erred in admitting Moretti's statement without ensuring the employee had received a copy, which was required under G.L. 1956 (1979 Reenactment, 28-35-10). The appellate commission ruled that the statement's admission and reliance on it was erroneous. The employer contended that the appellate commission wrongly excluded a statement from a co-employee, arguing it did not violate the statute since it was neither from an injured employee nor a supervisor. However, the appellate commission maintained that without providing a copy of such documents to the employee, they could be excluded from evidence.
The court emphasizes the necessity of interpreting statutes literally, ensuring that every word and clause is given full effect. In this case, the statement obtained by insurance investigator Amato from Moretti, a co-worker of injured employee Afonso, does not meet the definition of a "foreman or other supervisory employee" as required by General Laws 1956 (1979 Reenactment, 28-35-10). Consequently, the appellate commission erred in deeming the statement inadmissible, as the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, indicating that only statements from supervisory personnel must be provided to the injured employee for admissibility. The court finds that there is no need to address whether an objection was appropriately made, as the exclusion of the co-worker's statement directly impacted the appellate commission's findings. As a result, the employer’s appeal is upheld, and the case is remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission for reconsideration of the statement's admissibility. Additionally, the excerpt references a prior case involving Afonso's injury claims, which is consolidated for hearing but not further discussed in this opinion.
All relevant documents, including hospital records, nurses' notes, personnel records, and statements from supervisory employees, must be provided to the injured employee and their attorney immediately upon acquisition. If these documents are not provided in accordance with this requirement, they cannot be utilized by the employer, insurer, or attorney for examination purposes in any legal proceeding. Additionally, the individual who obtained these documents may be prohibited from testifying, and the documents themselves will be deemed inadmissible if the employee objects to their admission.
