Court Opinion

ID: 9707877
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:23:46.162085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:39.258101
License: Public Domain

Joslin, J.,
concurring. I concur in the result, but for a different reason. I attach no significance to the unappealed from decree of March 3, 1961 upon which the court appears to place principal reliance, excepting only as that decree may constitute a final determination of the respondent’s liability for medical services of a sum not in excess of $600.
The question as I view it is whether an employer who has denied liability for compensation waives the right to assert noncompliance with the major surgery permission and notice requirements, respectively, of G. L. 1956, §§28-33-5 and 28-33-8, as defenses to its obligation ¡to pay for surgical and hospital services received by an employee subsequent to that denial and prior to a judicial determination that the injury for which those services were received was compensable.
In Palumbo v. United States Rubber Co., 97 R. I. 20, 195 A.2d 238, we held that if and when §28-33-8 applies, there must be a literal compliance with its notice provisions. In my opinion, and for the reasons set forth in Palumbo-, the same rule applies to the permission for major surgery *128provision of §28-33-5. In determining when either applies or when it is required that there be a literal compliance therewith, I apply a liberal rather than strict rule.
Abedon, Michaelson, & Stanzler, Julius C. Michaelson, Richard M. Skolnik, for petitioner.
Gunning & LaFazia, Bruce M. Selya, Edward L. Gnys, Jr., Albert B. West, for respondent.
While not on all fours, Bishop v. Frank Morrow Co., 68 R. I. 518, has persuasive force. There the court held that an employer who denied liability for compensation was precluded from contending that an employee who had unreasonably refused proper medical attention should be denied weekly compensation payments for the period of his refusal. In reaching that conclusion, the court at page 522 said: “* * * the respondent, until after the case reached this court, denied that the petitioner’s hernia resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment iby the respondent, thus denying any obligation to pay the expenses of surgical treatment for such hernia * *
In this case, as in Bishop, the employer, until adjudication as to compensability by the commission, refused to pay weekly compensation benefits and thereby denied also any liability for the medical expenses incurred in the care and treatment of the injury sustained. Now after an adverse decision on the former issue, the respondent claims the benefits which would flow from a literal application of the relevant provisions of §§28-33-5 and 28-33-8. In my opinion it is precluded from so claiming and it has waived the right to defend against this petition on the ground of noncompliance with those requirements.
Roberts, J., concurs in the concurring.opinion of Mr. Justice Joslin.