Lovitt Foods, Inc. v. Veiga, 492 A.2d 1237 (R.I. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Lovitt Foods, Inc. v. Veiga, 492 A.2d 1237 (R.I. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Hicks v. Vennerbeck & Clase Co. (ri, 1987-05-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hicks v. Vennerbeck & Clase Co.
R.I. · 1987 · confidence medium
When testifying to a causal connection between employment and disability, or the lack thereof, a medical expert must speak of “probabilities” rather than “possibilities.” E.g., Lovitt Foods, Inc. v. Veiga, 492 A.2d 1237, 1238 (R.I.1985); Coletta v. Leviton Manufacturing Co., 437 A.2d 1380, 1383 (R.I.1981); Woods v. Safeway System, Inc., 101 R.I. 343, 346 , 223 A.2d 347, 349 (1966).
discussed Cited "see" Parrillo v. F.W. Woolworth Co.
R.I. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
It is well settled in this state that when expert medical testimony is offered to establish a causal relationship between a defendant’s act or omission and the plaintiff’s injury, such testimony must speak in terms of “probabilities” rather than “possibilities.” Sweet v. Hemingway Transport, Inc., 114 R.I. 348, 355 , 333 A.2d 411, 415 (1975); see Lovitt Foods, Inc. v. Veiga, 492 A.2d 1237, 1238 (R.I.1985); Simon v. Health-Tex, Inc., 490 A.2d 50, 51 (R.I.1985); Mullaney v. Goldman, 121 R.I. 358, 363 , 398 A.2d 1133, 1136 (1979).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lovitt Foods, Inc.
v.
Maria Veiga.
No. 83-145-Appeal.
Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
May 31, 1985.
492 A.2d 1237
1985 R.I. LEXIS 517
Raul L. Lovett, Lovett Morgera Schefrin & Gallogly, Ltd., Providence, for petitioner., Joanne McTiernan, Anderson Henning & Anderson, Providence, for respondent.
Kelleher.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

KELLEHER, Justice.

This is a workers’ compensation proceeding in which the employee appeals from a decree of the appellate division affirming the trial commissioner’s finding that since the employee’s incapacity for work had ended, the employer was authorized to suspend payment of any and all future weekly compensation benefits.

The employee worked for her employer, Lovitt Foods, Inc., as a meat packer. Part of her job entailed “lifting boxes weighing between 30 to 50 pounds containing mostly waste material.” At the time of the filing of the employer’s petition to review, the employee was receiving weekly compensation benefits of $113.79 for a “neck sprain” that was the result of an injury she incurred in the latter part of September 1980.

At the hearing before the trial commissioner, the employer presented as its sole witness an orthopedic surgeon who, after being asked for an opinion about the employee’s ability to return to work without any restrictions, on the basis of the employee’s history, her medical examination, and his X-rays, replied in the affirmative and then testified, “I felt she was capable of returning to her work with no restrictions.” Later, when asked if the employee’s return to work posed a hazard to her health, the witness replied in the negative, saying “I do not feel it would- be.” A surgeon’s report was introduced into evidence, and there the surgeon also observed, “I would feel [that the employee] should be capable of returning to work with no restriction.” We reverse.

As recently as Simon v. Health-Tex, Inc., 490 A.2d 50 (R.I.1985), this court emphasized the necessity for a medical expert who is testifying for the purpose of relating a person’s activities to a person’s injuries to speak in terms of “probabilities” rather than “possibilities” or even “feel ings,” citing Coletta v. Leviton Manufacturing Co., 437 A.2d 1380 (R.I.1981); Sweet v. Hemingway Transport, Inc., 114 R.I. 348, 333 A.2d 411 (1975); Suffoletta v. Ricci Drain Laying Co., 113 R.I. 114, 319 A.2d 19 (1974); Taglianetti v. Jo-Dee Corp., 103 R.I. 552, 239 A.2d 192 (1968); Woods v. Safeway System, Inc., 101 R.I. 343, 223 A.2d 347 (1966). Here, the surgeon’s testimony lacked the requisite degree of precision expected of an expert.

The employee’s appeal is sustained, the decree appealed from is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Commission.