- 11 -
the interpretation of the provision. The title of an act may
only aid interpretation by the court if there is doubt about the
meaning of the text of the provision. Town of East Greenwich v.
O'Neil, 617 A.2d 104, 109 (R.I. 1992). The title does not
control when a court analyzes the plain meaning of a provision.
Fiske v. MacGregor, Div. of Brunswick, 464 A.2d 719, 727 (R.I.
1983). We find that the plain meaning of the amendment is that
for disability claims of City firefighters and police, the City
ordinance applies "in lieu" of, in place of, or instead of
worker's compensation benefits. That workers injured while on
duty must claim benefits under the ordinance and not worker's
compensation is not the critical issue here, however. That
workers injured or rendered ill for reasons unrelated to their
work may, on the face of the provision as written (even with the
amendment), claim benefits under the ordinance is critical, and
fatal to any exemption under section 104(a). See Craft v. United
States, 879 F. Supp. 925, 932 (S.D. Ind. 1995)("in lieu of"
language of State disability statute cannot change its nature).
Conclusion
Although injured while on duty as a firefighter, petitioner
has failed to carry his burden of proof to show that he received
disability payments under a worker's compensation statute or a
statute in the nature of a worker's compensation statute. We are
unable to find erroneous respondent's determination that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011