Forte v. Fernando Originals, Ltd.

6 Citing cases

  1. Deschenes v. Transco, Inc.

    288 Conn. 303 (Conn. 2008)   Cited 24 times
    Concluding that "additional fact-finding proceedings [were] required because the record ... [did] not permit us to uphold the decision of the board under the correct legal standard, and also [did] not permit us to direct judgment in favor of the defendants because [despite the existence of evidence in the record] the commissioners [did] not [make] any findings with respect to the apportionment or proportional reduction ... of the plaintiff's benefits"

    (under state's apportionment statute, "the judge was required to give the employer credit for the functional loss attributable to cigarette smoking when that loss can be quantified" with respect to claimant with 25 percent partial disability resulting from asbestosis and bronchitis), cert. denied, 105 N.J. 531, 523 A.2d 172 (1986); cf. Fry's Food Stores of Arizona v. Industrial Commission, 177 Ariz. 264, 266-68, 866 P.2d 1350 (1994) (disability for worker with both smoking-related chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and "baker's lung" was fully compensable and not subject to apportionment because although nonoccupational illness caused lung "impairment," "baker's lung" was "`proverbial last straw'" that resulted in claimant's total disability, or inability to work). By way of illustration, we disagree with the analyses in Jenkins v. Halstead Industries, 17 Ark. App. 197, 706 S.W.2d 191 (1986), Anderson v. Brinkhoff, 859 P.2d 819 (Colo. 1993), and Forte v. Fernando Originals, Ltd., 667 A.2d 780 (R.I. 1995), wherein the courts apportioned awards in cases involving a disability that resulted from a single disease that was caused by multiple factors, some of which were not occupational. In Jenkins, the court upheld an apportionment of the claimant's disability payments, which was attributable only to a single diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, based on 92 percent to his smoking and 8 percent to his occupational exposure to chemical fumes and talc dust. Jenkins v. Halstead Industries, supra, 201.

  2. Deschenes v. Transco, Inc.

    284 Conn. 479 (Conn. 2007)   Cited 5 times

    528, 530, 507 A.2d 1209 (App. Div.) (under state's apportionment statute, "the judge was required to give the employer credit for the functional loss attributable to cigarette smoking when that loss can be quantified" with respect to claimant with 25 percent partial disability resulting from asbestosis and bronchitis), cert. denied, 105 N.J. 531, 523 A.2d 172 (1986); cf. Fry's Food Stores of Arizona v. Industrial Commission, 111 Ariz. 264, 266-68, 866 P.2d 1350 (1994) (disability for worker with both smoking-related chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and "baker's lung" was fully compensable and not subject to apportionment because although nonoccupational illness caused lung "impairment," "baker's lung" was "'proverbial last straw'" that resulted in claimant's total disability, or inability to work). By way of illustration, we disagree with the analyses in Jenkins v. Halstead Industries, 17 Ark. App. 197, 706 S.W.2d 191 (1986), Anderson v. Brinkhoff, 859 P.2d 819 (Colo. 1993), and Forte v. Fernando Originals, Ltd., 667 A.2d 780 (R.I. 1995), wherein the courts apportioned awards in cases involving a disability that resulted from a single disease that was caused by multiple factors, some of which were not occupational. In Jenkins, the court upheld an apportionment of the claimant's disability payments, which was attributable only to a single diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, based on 92 percent to his smoking and 8 percent to his occupational exposure to chemical fumes and talc dust.

  3. Callaghan v. Occupational Info. Committee

    704 A.2d 740 (R.I. 1997)   Cited 9 times

    Moreover, if such evidence exists, the findings of the tribunal, in this case the Appellate Division, are binding upon this Court, absent fraud. Forte v. Fernando Originals, Ltd., 667 A.2d 780, 782 (R.I. 1995) (citingFalvey v. Women and Infants Hospital, 584 A.2d 417, 419 (R.I. 1991)). Appellate Division's Jurisdiction to Reverse Trial Court Award

  4. Bechtel Corporation v. Ponte

    762 A.2d 456 (R.I. 2000)   Cited 1 times

    We do not weigh the evidence, but rather, we review the record to "determine whether legally competent evidence supports the findings of the tribunal whose decision is under review, in this case, the Appellate Division." Forte v. Fernando Originals, Ltd., 667 A.2d 780, 782 (R.I. 1995). Where such evidence exists, the Appellate Division's findings will be binding upon this Court, absent fraud.

  5. Rezendes v. American Insulated Wire

    754 A.2d 110 (R.I. 2000)

    This Court's standard of review on certiorari is not to weigh the evidence, but to review the record to determine whether legally competent evidence exists to support the findings of the Appellate Division. See Forte v. Fernando Originals, Ltd., 667 A.2d 780, 782 (R.I. 1995). Upon review of the record in this case, we conclude that the Appellate Division did not err in holding that Rezendes had failed to meet the requirements for SAE.

  6. Donnelly v. Town of Lincoln

    730 A.2d 5 (R.I. 1999)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that the raise-or-waive doctrine did not bar this Court from reviewing an issue raised for the first time on appeal because a statute automatically provided for that issue

    This Court reviews the factual findings of the Appellate Division of the Workers' Compensation Court "to determine whether legally competent evidence supports [its] findings[.] * * * If such evidence exists, the Appellate Division's findings are binding upon this [C]ourt, absent fraud." Forte v. Fernando Originals, Ltd., 667 A.2d 780, 782 (R.I. 1995). Award of Interest