No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's denial of workers' compensation benefits for petitioner's neck injury, holding that despite trial judge error in questioning Dr. Rocco's qualifications, competent evidence supported the finding that his testimony was inconsistent.
The petitioner, Philip L. Thompson, Jr., petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review a December 4, 2017 final decree of the Appellate Division of the Workers' Compensation Court which had the effect of denying him workers' compensation benefits for his neck injury. The Supreme Court granted Mr. Thompson's petition on February 26, 2019 and issued a writ of certiorari. Mr. Thompson argued before the Court that the Appellate Division erred in affirming the trial judge because the trial judge committed reversible error by: (1) stating that Dr. Thomas Rocco was not qualified to opine on an orthopedic issue due to the fact that he was a board certified general surgeon, not a board certified orthopedic surgeon and (2) finding Dr. Rocco's testimony to be inconsistent. The Supreme Court held that, although the trial judge was in error in stating that Dr. Rocco was not qualified, the Appellate Division clearly considered Dr. Rocco's testimony and weighed it in the course of reviewing the decision of the trial judge. The Court further held that legally competent evidence existed to support the determination of the Appellate Division that the trial judge did not err in finding Dr. Rocco's testimony to be inconsistent. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the final decree of the Appellate Division.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
The plaintiff, Clifton Peasley (plaintiff or Peasley), appealed the Superior Court's dismissal of his action for declaratory relief, which sought, inter alia, a decree that he was entitled to back pay. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal pursuant to the election of remedies doctrine. In this respect, it was undisputed that before commencing the action for declaratory relief, the plaintiff had filed a grievance seeking back pay, which proceeding remained pending in arbitration. Peasley's efforts to compare the provisions of the Teachers' Tenure Act with the landmark antidiscrimination protections discussed in Weeks v. 735 Putnam Pike Operations, LLC, 85 A.3d 1147 (R.I. 2014), was unavailing. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed.
The plaintiff, Jane Doe, appealed from a Superior Court judgment dismissing her complaint against the defendants, Brown University and two of its employees. In Superior Court, the plaintiff asserted claims under both the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act (RICRA) and article 1, section 2 of the Rhode Island Constitution. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the hearing justice erred in determining that her claims under RICRA were precluded by the prior dismissal of the plaintiff's federal Title IX claim. The plaintiff also argued that the hearing justice erred in holding that section 2 of article 1 of the Rhode Island Constitution does not grant the plaintiff a private right of action. The Supreme Court first held that the plaintiff's claims under RICRA were predicated upon the defendants' alleged violations of Title IX, which had already been litigated in federal court. Further, the Supreme Court stated that the resolution of that issue in federal court was essential to the judgment on the merits and, therefore, issue preclusion barred the plaintiff's claim in Superior Court. The Supreme Court also held that the plaintiff's claim that the defendants interfered with her contract with an educational institution was not actionable. Next, the Supreme Court examined the antidiscrimination clause contained in section 2 of article 1 of the Rhode Island Constitution and held that it was not self executing. Further, the Supreme Court held that principles of judicial restraint prevented the Court from creating a private right of action under these circumstances. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.