Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-33-25 (2026)

Settlement for lump sum or structured-type payment

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)(1) The parties may petition the workers’ compensation court for an order approving a settlement of the future liability for a lump sum or structured-type periodic payment over a period of time.

(2)(i) In considering the petition, a judge shall give due weight to the fact that it is the policy of this chapter that compensation be paid weekly.

(ii) The petition shall be considered by a judge of the court and may be granted where it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the payment of a lump sum or structured-type payment in lieu of future weekly payments will be in the best interest of all parties including the employee, employer, insurance carrier, and where applicable, the workers’ compensation administrative fund and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as their interests may appear. Any proposed settlement that exceeds one hundred four (104) weeks of compensation for partial incapacity may be rejected by the chief judge in his or her discretion. The employee shall be entitled to a finding amortizing the net settlement over his or her life expectancy.

(iii) In determining whether the settlement is in the best interest of all parties, the judge may refer the employee for a rehabilitation evaluation pursuant to the provisions of § 28-33-41.

(3) Upon payment, the employer and insurer shall be entitled to a duly executed release that fully and finally absolves and discharges the employer and insurer from any and all liability arising out of the injury.

(b) The provisions of this section shall be strictly construed and all hearings for commutation shall be conducted in open session.

(c) No case may be settled to a lump sum or structured-type periodic payment while the Rhode Island temporary disability insurance fund and/or department of human services has a claim for payments made under chapter 41 of this title unless agreement is made to pay any claim from the lump sum or structured-type periodic payments.

(d) Attorney’s fees shall be fixed by the court, but in no event shall any attorney’s fee for representing an employee in connection with a petition brought pursuant to this section exceed a sum equal to twenty percent (20%) of the lump sum or twenty percent (20%) of the structured-type periodic payment reduced to present day value.

(e) No case shall be settled for a lump sum or structured-type periodic payment unless it is placed upon the record in open session, that the employer, if insured, has been advised by the insurer or its agent of the potential effect of the settlement on its workers’ compensation premium, and has the opportunity to appear and state its disapproval of the settlement.

(f) Settlements must be paid within fourteen (14) days of entry of an order to pay or the date(s) upon which payment(s) is/are due pursuant to a court order, and a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100) shall be assessed for every day payment is delinquent.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1968–2022 · leading case: Almstead v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 478 A.2d 980 (R.I. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Almstead v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 478 A.2d 980 (R.I. 1984). · cites it 9× “2 It is plaintiffs contention that since such a lump-sum award is based upon probable future payments and is authorized as an exception to the general purpose and payment scheme of the Workers’ Compensation Act, the director and the board of review had no basis for projecting…”

Nassa v. Hook-SupeRx, Inc., 790 A.2d 368 (R.I. 2002). · cites it 3× “The Court held that the employee’s settlement under G.L.1956 § 28-33-25 fully and finally absolved and discharged the employer and insurer from all civil liability when Manzi signed the release in settlement of his claims.”

Waterman v. Caprio, 983 A.2d 841 (R.I. 2009). “1 provides in pertinent part: "Notwithstanding the provisions of §§ 28-33-25 and 28-33-26, in cases where liability of the employer for payment of workers’ compensation benefits has not been finally established, the parties may submit a settlement proposal to the workers'…”

Kulawas v. Rhode Island Hosp., 994 A.2d 649 (R.I. 2010). · cites it 2× “1 provides: "Notwithstanding the provisions of §§ 28-33-25 and 28-33-26, in cases where liability of the employer for payment of workers' compensation benefits has not been finally established, the parties may submit a settlement proposal to the [W]orkers' [C]ompensation [C]ourt…”

Duffy v. Powell, 18 A.3d 487 (R.I. 2011). · cites it 2× “) Thus, the DLT was correct in determining that the pro rata settlement was prospective and applied from October 27, 2006, through October 6, 2008.”

Sarrasin v. Crescent Co., 241 A.2d 818 (R.I. 1968). · cites it 2× “1956, §28-33-25, this decree was entered pursuant to the commission’s authorization of commutation of all future benefits in consideration of a lump sum payment of $2,100.”

Fam. Dollar Stores of Rhode Island, Inc. v. Justin B. Araujo (R.I. 2022). · cites it 3× “Araujo intended to file a complaint with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for alleged violations of various disability, civil rights, and employment laws.”

— R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-33-25(a)(l) — 1 case

Duffy v. Powell, 18 A.3d 487 (R.I. 2011). “) Thus, the DLT was correct in determining that the pro rata settlement was prospective and applied from October 27, 2006, through October 6, 2008.”

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.