Court Opinion

ID: 4955088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-24 13:34:48.059706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:00:39.840764
License: Public Domain

[1] ORDER
[2] This matter came before the court on a petition for writ of certiorari filed by the plaintiff Carol Lemos to review a final decree entered by the Appellate Division of the Workers' Compensation Court.
[3] After careful consideration, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
[4] Justice Goldberg is of the opinion that the petition for writ of certiorari should be granted and that this court should re-examine its decision in Vater v. HB Group, 667 A.2d 283 (R.I. 1995). Vater by implication vacated this court's long-standing holding in Leva v. Caron Granite Co., 84 R.I. 360, 124 A.2d 534
(1956). In Leva, this court was called upon to interpret §§28-34-8, -10 where the last employer of an employee who sustained an occupational injury or disease was unable "to take proceedings against a prior employer" under § 28-34-8 because that employer "was not under the workmen's compensation act and therefore could not be proceeded against" under § 28-34-10.Id. at 367, 124 A.2d at 537. The Leva court unequivocally stated that § 28-34-10
 "merely requires the employee to furnish sufficient information to enable the last employer to take proceedings against a prior employer. It says nothing about the responsibility or liability of such prior employer under the workmen's compensation act being a condition precedent to the employee's right under sec. 8 [§ 28-34-8], to recover from the last employer. If the legislature intended such a result they could very easily have said so and it seems to us they would not have employed the dubious phraseology of sec. 10 to convey such a positive intention. We think they intended the employee to make a full disclosure of his previous employers so that the last employer could take against them whatever action might be available to it." Id. at 368, 124 A.2d at 538.
[5] Accordingly Justice Goldberg would grant the petition for writ of certiorari to consider this question of law. *Page 218