R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-34-3 (2026)

Benefits available to victims of disease

✓ 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 is disabled or dies and his disability or death is caused by one of the diseases mentioned in the schedule contained in § 28-34-2, and the disease is due to the nature of the employment in which that employee was engaged and was contracted in, he or she or his or her dependents shall be entitled to compensation for his or her death or for his or her disablement, and he or she shall be entitled to be furnished with medical and hospital services, as provided in chapter 33 of this title, except as provided in this chapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1964–2009 · leading case: Mumma v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 965 A.2d 437 (R.I. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mumma v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 965 A.2d 437 (R.I. 2009). · cites it 8× “1956 § 28-33-18 (partial incapacity benefits) or G.L.1956 § 28-34-3 (benefits for an occupational disease) and the employee physically is capable of performing the work without risk to his or her health.”
Wayland Health Ctr. v. Lowe, 475 A.2d 1037 (R.I. 1984). · cites it 5× “1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-34-3. At the hearing on the petition, three witnesses testified.”
Larose v. Warwick Brass Foundry, Inc., 198 A.2d 668 (R.I. 1964). · cites it 3× “1956, §28-34-3, wherein *460 he alleges disablement resulting from his contraction of an occupational disease.”
Oladapo v. Charlesgate Nursing Corp., 590 A.2d 405 (R.I. 1991). · cites it 2× “Section 28-34-3 refers to employees receiving benefits for occupational diseases.”
Vater v. Hb Grp., 667 A.2d 283 (R.I. 1995). · cites it 2× “1956 (1986 Reenactment) §§ 28-34-1 and 28-34-2, she is entitled to compensation pursuant to § 28-34-3. Second, Vater contends that the trial judge misconstrued the law when he apportioned liability among her prior employers.”
Andrade v. Mintell, 229 A.2d 50 (R.I. 1967). · cites it 5× “These contentions, relating to the determination of disability due to occupational disease, raise a question of whether the proviso contained in §28-34-3 is a different formula for the ascertainment of the amount of compensation benefits from the formula set out in chap.”
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.