Shepard Co. v. Curcio

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Shepard Co. v. Curcio

10 R.I. Dec. 5

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJune 23, 1933

DocketW. C. A. No. 1494

StatusPublished

This text of 10 R.I. Dec. 5 (Shepard Co. v. Curcio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior 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

Shepard Co. v. Curcio, 10 R.I. Dec. 5 (R.I. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

CHURCHILL, J.

This is a petition on the part of The Shepard Company, which is now paying compensation payments, for relief from such payments. There is very little conflict in the testimony of the two physicians who have testified in the case; one, Dr. Palmer, on the part of the petitioner, and the other the physician who has treated the respondent here practically since the time of the accident. The respondent, himself, took the stand and testified he is not able to use a needle in his usual occupation as a tailor, owing to the injury to his fore-finger. On this conflicting testimony I am convinced and find that on April 28th, 1933, the respondent had functionally a complete finger and, one in which there is no limitation of motion or other existing injury or disability; and I further find that in May, 1933, when he went to the store of the peti[6]*6tioner lie was able to do the work at which he was employed at the time of his injury.

For petitioner: Gardner, Moss & Haslam. For respondent: Carl Testa.

The prayer of the petitioner for relief from payments is granted.

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

CHURCHILL, J.

This is a petition on the part of The Shepard Company, which is now paying compensation payments, for relief from such payments. There is very little conflict in the testimony of the two physicians who have testified in the case; one, Dr. Palmer, on the part of the petitioner, and the other the physician who has treated the respondent here practically since the time of the accident. The respondent, himself, took the stand and testified he is not able to use a needle in his usual occupation as a tailor, owing to the injury to his fore-finger. On this conflicting testimony I am convinced and find that on April 28th, 1933, the respondent had functionally a complete finger and, one in which there is no limitation of motion or other existing injury or disability; and I further find that in May, 1933, when he went to the store of the peti[6]*6tioner lie was able to do the work at which he was employed at the time of his injury.

For petitioner: Gardner, Moss & Haslam. For respondent: Carl Testa.

The prayer of the petitioner for relief from payments is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 R.I. Dec. 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shepard-co-v-curcio-risuperct-1933.