William Bloom & Son, Inc. v. Monahan

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

William Bloom & Son, Inc. v. Monahan

383 A.2d 582, 119 R.I. 707, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 611

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedFebruary 28, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 383 A.2d 582 (William Bloom & Son, Inc. v. Monahan) 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

William Bloom & Son, Inc. v. Monahan, 383 A.2d 582, 119 R.I. 707, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 611 (R.I. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this workmen’s compensation proceeding the employer sought relief from its obligation to pay compensation on the ground that the preliminary agreement between the parties providing for such payment was procured by the mutual mistake of the parties as to whether the employee’s incapacity was work-related. Both the trial commissioner and the full commission resolved the antecedent factual issue upon which that question hinged against the employer, leaving no question of law to be determined. The case then came here on appeal and, acting sua sponte, we directed the employer to appear and show cause why its appeal should not be dismissed in view of our rule precluding disturbance, absent fraud, of a finding of fact by the commission that is supported by any legal evidence. Knowlton v. Porter Trucking Co., 117 R.I. 28, 31-32, 362 A.2d 131 (1976); Gilbane Building Co. v. Zorabedian, 113 R.I. 129, 133, 318 A.2d 466, 469 (1974). The employer has failed to establish such cause and, accordingly, its appeal is denied and dismissed, the decree appealed from is affirmed, [708]*708and the case is remanded to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.

Higgins, Cavanagh <b Cooney, Harold E. Adams, Jr., for petitioner. Pat Nero, for respondent.

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

Per Curiam.

In this workmen’s compensation proceeding the employer sought relief from its obligation to pay compensation on the ground that the preliminary agreement between the parties providing for such payment was procured by the mutual mistake of the parties as to whether the employee’s incapacity was work-related. Both the trial commissioner and the full commission resolved the antecedent factual issue upon which that question hinged against the employer, leaving no question of law to be determined. The case then came here on appeal and, acting sua sponte, we directed the employer to appear and show cause why its appeal should not be dismissed in view of our rule precluding disturbance, absent fraud, of a finding of fact by the commission that is supported by any legal evidence. Knowlton v. Porter Trucking Co., 117 R.I. 28, 31-32, 362 A.2d 131 (1976); Gilbane Building Co. v. Zorabedian, 113 R.I. 129, 133, 318 A.2d 466, 469 (1974). The employer has failed to establish such cause and, accordingly, its appeal is denied and dismissed, the decree appealed from is affirmed, [708]*708and the case is remanded to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.

Higgins, Cavanagh <b Cooney, Harold E. Adams, Jr., for petitioner. Pat Nero, for respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 A.2d 582, 119 R.I. 707, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-bloom-son-inc-v-monahan-ri-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack