BIF a Unit of General Signal Corp. v. Des Roches

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

BIF a Unit of General Signal Corp. v. Des Roches

364 A.2d 1290, 117 R.I. 914, 1976 R.I. LEXIS 1678

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedSeptember 22, 1976

DocketAppeal No. 74-138

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 364 A.2d 1290 (BIF a Unit of General Signal Corp. v. Des Roches) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BIF a Unit of General Signal Corp. v. Des Roches, 364 A.2d 1290, 117 R.I. 914, 1976 R.I. LEXIS 1678 (R.I. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

After the filing of our opinion the employer petitioned for permission to reargue the case. It urges in support of that petition that (1) we erroneously attributed to it an admission that the employee was partially “incapacitated” whereas it contends that it admitted only that he was partially “disabled”; and (2) it is unable to determine from our opinion whether the compensation benefits due the employee for partial incapacity shall be reduced by an amount equal to the pension benefits it is paying him.

Neither reason furnishes a sufficient warrant for granting reargument. The first is insufficient because the result in the case would in no way be affected had we not attributed to it the admission it finds offensive.

[915]*915The petition for reargument is denied. E. Howland Bowen, for petitioner. Richard A. Skolnik, for respondent.

The second reason advanced for reargument is no more persuasive. We now make explicit what we thought was implicit in our opinion: retirement benefits paid to the employee shall not be deducted from, credited against, or used as an offset to workmen’s compensation benefits due him. In our judgment neither §28-33-18 nor §28-33-21 of G. L. 1956 (1968 Reenactment) can fairly be read to permit a contrary conclusion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

After the filing of our opinion the employer petitioned for permission to reargue the case. It urges in support of that petition that (1) we erroneously attributed to it an admission that the employee was partially “incapacitated” whereas it contends that it admitted only that he was partially “disabled”; and (2) it is unable to determine from our opinion whether the compensation benefits due the employee for partial incapacity shall be reduced by an amount equal to the pension benefits it is paying him.

Neither reason furnishes a sufficient warrant for granting reargument. The first is insufficient because the result in the case would in no way be affected had we not attributed to it the admission it finds offensive.

[915]*915The petition for reargument is denied. E. Howland Bowen, for petitioner. Richard A. Skolnik, for respondent.

The second reason advanced for reargument is no more persuasive. We now make explicit what we thought was implicit in our opinion: retirement benefits paid to the employee shall not be deducted from, credited against, or used as an offset to workmen’s compensation benefits due him. In our judgment neither §28-33-18 nor §28-33-21 of G. L. 1956 (1968 Reenactment) can fairly be read to permit a contrary conclusion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

364 A.2d 1290, 117 R.I. 914, 1976 R.I. LEXIS 1678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bif-a-unit-of-general-signal-corp-v-des-roches-ri-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack