Preview:

Supreme Court No. 2000-145-Appeal. (PC 94-314) Americo J. Zinno v. Richard Patenaude et al. : : :

Present: Williams, C.J., Bourcier, Flanders and Goldberg, JJ. OPINION PER CURIAM. This case came before the Supreme Court on March 12, 2001, pursuant to an order directing both parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. The plaintiff, Americo J. Zinno (plaintiff or Zinno), appealed an entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants Richard Patenaude (Patenaude), Brown University (university) and the State of Rhode Island (collectively defendants). After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the record and memoranda submitted by the parties we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown and that the issues raised by this appeal will be decided at this time. The events insofar as they are pertinent to this appeal are set forth in Zinno v. Patenaude, 711 A.2d 646 (R.I. 1998) (mem.). In brief, the facts are as follows. Both Zinno and Patenaude were employed by the university at the time these events took place. The plaintiff contended that in March 1991, while at work, he was assaulted by Patenaude and suffered an injury to his neck. The plaintiff did not report the assault. Some eight days after the incident, plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim with the university in which he stated that the injury to his neck

-1-

occurred while he was moving a drafting table. As a result of his claim, Zinno received workers' compensation benefits for a period of one year. The benefits were terminated when an orthopedic consultant employed by the university determined that the condition suffered by plaintiff was arthritic in nature and not a work-related injury. On June 2, 1992, subsequent to the termination of his workers' compensation benefits, Zinno informed the university that his arthritic condition was aggravated by the assault. After the workers' compensation coordinator determined that the assault was not work-related, plaintiff's complaint was thus directed to the human resources department. The plaintiff thereafter remained on unrestricted duty at the university. The plaintiff contended that he was forced into early retirement as a result of the unrestricted duty and constant harassment by Patenaude and other coworkers. Zinno then filed suit in the Superior Court against Patenaude and the university. Summary judgment was entered in favor of defendants, and plaintiff has appealed. The plaintiff's appeal in this matter is limited to count 3 of the second amended complaint, in which he sought recovery under the Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Protection Act, G.L. 1956 chapter 50 of title 28 (the act). Specifically, plaintiff contended that the actions taken on behalf of the university to "arbitrarily terminate the plaintiff's workers' compensation benefits, and to assign him to harsh jobs was a vindictive and deliberate act intended to aggravate plaintiff's painful condition, and, to force the plaintiff into early retirement in retaliation [for] his whistle-blower activities." Pursuant to

Download 00-145.pdf

Rhode Island Law