The employee shall, after an injury, and at reasonable times during the continuance
of his or her disability if so requested by his or her employer, submit himself or
herself to an examination by a physician, or rehabilitation counselor certified by
the director pursuant to § 28-33-41 in cases where the employee has received compensation for a period of more than three
(3) months, furnished and paid for by the employer. The employee shall have the right
to have a physician provided by the employee and paid for by the employer present
at the examination. The employee shall be entitled to a full, exact, signed duplicate
copy of the medical report of the examining physician, which shall be mailed by the
employer or carrier to the employee and his or her attorney upon receipt of the original
report by the employer or carrier. Failure to do so shall make the report or evidence
of the examining physician inadmissible if objection is made by the employee to the
admission of the report or evidence. Provided, that at the employee’s or his or her
attorney’s request, a judge of the workers’ compensation court shall order the employer
or carrier to furnish to the employee a full, exact, signed duplicate copy of the
medical report of the examining physician. Nothing in this section shall be construed
to require the employee to be receiving benefits as a condition precedent to the requirement
of an examination.
Notes of Decisions
Tavares v. Aramark Corp., 841 A.2d 1124 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 8× “IV G.L.1956 § 28-33-34 General Laws 1956 § 28-33-34 provides: "The employee shall, after an injury, * * * *1131 if so requested by his or her employer, submit himself or herself to an examination by a physician * * * in cases where the employee has received compensation for a…”
Monticelli v. Trifari, Krussman & Fishel, Inc., 495 A.2d 994 (R.I. 1985).
· cites it 4× “General Laws 1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-33-34 provides that an employee shall, after an injury, if so requested by his employer, submit himself to an examination by a physician furnished and paid by the employer.”
Saccoccio v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 264 A.2d 905 (R.I. 1970).
· cites it 4× “The decisive issue for us is whether an employer who has denied liability may require an injured employee to submit himself to a §28-33-34 medical examination while the liability question is still pending.”
Davol, Inc. v. Aguiar, 463 A.2d 170 (R.I. 1983).
“1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-33-34 requires that an employee submit to a physical examination by a physician furnished by the employer at the employer’s request.”
Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Puniello, 422 A.2d 746 (R.I. 1980).
· cites it 4× “1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-33-34. 1 It is contended by *747 the employee that this physician was an examining physician selected by the employer and that his testimony should have been inadmissible since he did not mail medical reports to the employee and his attorney as…”
Giordiano v. Uniroyal, Inc., 273 A.2d 855 (R.I. 1971).
· cites it 2× “2d 129 , we ruled that the trial commissioner had erred in admitting into evidence the contents of a medical report which had not been furnished to the employee in accordance with §28-33-34. This statute, which is comparable to §28-35-10, requires an injured employee to submit…”
DeMarco v. M.A. Gammino Constr. Co., 492 A.2d 835 (R.I. 1985).
“General Laws 1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-33-34 provides in pertinent part that “[t]he employee shall, after an injury, at reasonable times during the continuance of his disability, if so requested by his employer, submit himself to an examination by a physician, furnished and…”
Salvas v. Pawtucket Sch. Dep't, 420 A.2d 74 (R.I. 1980).
· cites it 9× “Prior to the hearing on Salvas’s petition, the employer requested Salvas to submit to a medical examination as provided in § 28-33-34. 2 Salvas refused and that refusal prompted the employer to move for dismissal of his petition in an attempt to invoke the sanctions provided in…”
Ruggieri v. Pearson Corp., 242 A.2d 304 (R.I. 1968).
· cites it 9× “1956, §28-33-34, as amended. After a hearing on the petition, the trial commissioner found that the workman’s compensation commission “* '* * is without authority to order the respondent to reimburse the petitioner for any expenses incurred in travelling to and from a physical…”
Mis v. Washburn Wire Co., 195 A.2d 334 (R.I. 1963).
· cites it 2× “1956, §28-33-34; 3. In finding that petitioner had failed to prove an injury to his right foot referable to the pivoting and twisting of his body in the course of his employment; and 4.”
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.