R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-33-1 (2026)

Employees entitled to compensation

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If an employee who has not given notice of his or her claim of common law rights of action, or who has given the notice and has waived the common law rights, as provided in § 28-29-19, receives a personal injury arising out of and in the course of his or her employment, connected and referable to the employment, he or she shall be paid compensation, as hereinafter provided, by an employer subject to or who has elected to become subject to the provisions of chapters 29 — 38 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1960–2022 · leading case: Seitz v. L & R Indus., Inc., Etc., 437 A.2d 1345 (R.I. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Seitz v. L & R Indus., Inc., Etc., 437 A.2d 1345 (R.I. 1981). · cites it 6× “1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-33-1 as a "personal injury arising out of and in the course of [her] employment.”
Iacampo v. Hasbro, Inc., 929 F. Supp. 562 (D.R.I. 1996). · cites it 2× “To be compensable under the WCA, an injury must “[arise] out of and in the course of’ the plaintiffs employment, R.I. Gen.Laws § 28-33-1, a statutory requirement that the Rhode Island Supreme Court has refined into a “nexus” or “causal relationship” test.”
Rison v. Air Filter Sys., Inc., 707 A.2d 675 (R.I. 1998). · cites it 2× “Section 28-33-1, the first section of the relevant chapter, entitled “Workers’ Compensation — Benefits,” provides that employers subject to chapters 29 to 38 must pay “compensation” to employees covered by the WCA.”
Spikes v. State, 458 A.2d 672 (R.I. 1983). · cites it 2× “Section 28-29-6 defines all employers who are subject to the act, as “[e]very person, firm, and private corporation, including any public service corporation, including the state, that employs four (4) or more work *674 ers or operatives regularly in the same business or in or…”
Lomba v. Providence Gravure, Inc., 465 A.2d 186 (R.I. 1983). · cites it 2× “In order to be entitled to compensation benefits, an employee must receive "a personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, connected therewith and referable thereto * * *.”
Paul Ellis v. Verizon New England, Inc., 63 A.3d 510 (R.I. 2013). · cites it 4× “Finally, Ellis asserts that the Appellate Division erred in affirming the trial court’s conclusion that the crime data he presented at trial did not sufficiently separate the incidence of aggravated assaults from other types of violent crimes.”
Cousineau v. ITT Royal Elec., 484 A.2d 884 (R.I. 1984). · cites it 4× “The employee claims that § 28-34-2 of the Workers’ Compensation Act is not the exclusive remedial section in these circumstances and that he may recover, in the alternative, pursuant to G.”
Cianci v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 659 A.2d 662 (R.I. 1995). “General Laws 1956 (1986 Reenactment) § 28-33-1 provides that an employee who receives a personal injury “arising out of and in the course of his employment” shall be paid compensation under the act.”
Tromba v. Harwood Mfg. Co., 177 A.2d 186 (R.I. 1962). · cites it 2× “1956, §28-33-1. This court has also expressed its conviction that one of the primary objectives of the compensation act is “to require industry, in the first instance at least, to take care of casualties occurring therein and thus save the general public from being compelled to…”
Knowlton v. Porter Trucking Co., Inc., 362 A.2d 131 (R.I. 1976). “General Laws 1956 (1968 Reenactment) §28-33-1. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner, a mechanic, was employed by respondent to- repair damaged motor vehicles.”
Bottomley v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 441 A.2d 553 (R.I. 1982). “General Laws 1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-33-1 provides that an injured worker is entitled to receive compensation for injuries that arise “out of and in the course of his employment, connected therewith and referable thereto * * Thus, the sole issue presented is whether the…”
Parkinson v. Leesona Corp.., 341 A.2d 33 (R.I. 1975). · cites it 2× “*123 The statutory provisions involved in the determination of the question are General Laws 1956 (1968 Reenactment) §§28-33-1 and 28-33-17. They read as follows: “§28-33-1.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.