Cabral v. Branch River Wool Combing Co.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Cabral v. Branch River Wool Combing Co.

230 A.2d 247, 102 R.I. 326, 1967 R.I. LEXIS 690

DecidedJune 8, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 230 A.2d 247 (Cabral v. Branch River Wool Combing Co.) 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

Cabral v. Branch River Wool Combing Co., 230 A.2d 247, 102 R.I. 326, 1967 R.I. LEXIS 690 (R.I. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case is a companion to and was heard both before the commission and here together with Cabral v. Hall, Director of Labor, 102 R. I. 320, decided this day. The case is here on the employee’s appeal from a decree of the full commission affirming a decree of a trial commissioner denying and dismissing his petition for excess medical benefits.

This petition together with the one in the companion case were brought in order to insure insofar as possible that the employee’s claim for medical benefits was prosecuted against all who might ultimately be charged with [327]*327responsibility therefor. Success having come to him in the companion case, the employee concedes that his appeal in this case where he claims directly against his employer is without merit.

Hogan & Hogan, Thomas S. Hogan, for petitioner. Hinckley, Allen, Salisbury & Parsons, Thomas J. Hogan, Thomas D. Gidley, for respondent.

The employee’s appeal is denied and dismissed, the decree appealed from is affirmed, and the cause is remanded to the workmen’s compensation commission for further proceedings.

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

Per Curiam.

This case is a companion to and was heard both before the commission and here together with Cabral v. Hall, Director of Labor, 102 R. I. 320, decided this day. The case is here on the employee’s appeal from a decree of the full commission affirming a decree of a trial commissioner denying and dismissing his petition for excess medical benefits.

This petition together with the one in the companion case were brought in order to insure insofar as possible that the employee’s claim for medical benefits was prosecuted against all who might ultimately be charged with [327]*327responsibility therefor. Success having come to him in the companion case, the employee concedes that his appeal in this case where he claims directly against his employer is without merit.

Hogan & Hogan, Thomas S. Hogan, for petitioner. Hinckley, Allen, Salisbury & Parsons, Thomas J. Hogan, Thomas D. Gidley, for respondent.

The employee’s appeal is denied and dismissed, the decree appealed from is affirmed, and the cause is remanded to the workmen’s compensation commission for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 A.2d 247, 102 R.I. 326, 1967 R.I. LEXIS 690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cabral-v-branch-river-wool-combing-co-ri-1967.