The total compensation due shall be recovered from the employer who or that last employed
the employee in the employment to the nature of which the disease was due and in which
it was contracted. If, however, the disease was contracted while the employee was
in the employment of a prior employer, the employer who or that is made liable for
the total compensation as provided by this section may petition the workers’ compensation
court for an apportionment of the compensation among the several employers who or
that since the contraction of the disease have employed the employee in the employment
to the nature of which the disease was due. The apportionment shall be proportioned
to the time the employee was employed in the service of the employers and shall be
determined only after a hearing, notice of the time and place of which shall have
been given to every employer alleged to be liable for any portion of the compensation.
If the court finds that any portion of the compensation is payable by an employer
prior to the employer who or that is made liable for the total compensation as provided
by this section, it shall make an award accordingly in favor of the last employer,
and that award may be enforced in the same manner as an award for compensation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 1958–2012 · leading case:
Vater v. Hb Grp., 667 A.2d 283 (R.I. 1995).
Vater v. Hb Grp., 667 A.2d 283 (R.I. 1995).
· cites it 4× “She argues that because HB Group did not petition for an apportionment of benefits as required by § 28-34-8, as amended by P.L.1990, ch. 332, art.”
Gallagher v. Nat'l Grid USA/Narragansett Elec., 44 A.3d 743 (R.I. 2012).
· cites it 5× “6 The trial judge entered pretrial orders denying the petitions against Electric Boat and National Grid and granting the petition against USGEN, finding US-GEN liable for benefits as the “last employer” under § 28-34-8. 7 Both Mr. Gallagher and USGEN timely claimed for a trial.”
Am. Power Conversion v. Benny's, Inc., 740 A.2d 1265 (R.I. 1999).
· cites it 28× “This workers’ compensation case calls upon us to construe a provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act (the act), G.L. 1956 § 28-34-8, 1 concerning the liability of employers to pay for the total compensation benefits due to an employee disabled *1267 by an occupational disease.”
Tavares v. A.C. & S. Inc., 462 A.2d 977 (R.I. 1983).
“151, § 1, provide that a disabled employee is entitled to compensation if the occupational disease is due to the nature of the employment and was contracted within that employment. Furthermore, when a worker has contracted an occupational disease from being exposed to a harmful…”
Morgan v. Stillman White Foundry Co., 142 A.2d 536 (R.I. 1958).
· cites it 2× “This is a petition for an apportionment under general laws 1956, §28-34-8, between prior employers, of the total compensation paid by the petitioners as the last employers of an employee who was disabled by an occupational disease.”
Lemos v. Casten Victor Co., 704 A.2d 217 (R.I. 1997).
· cites it 3× “In Leva , this court was called upon to interpret §§ 28-34-8, -10 where the last employer of an employee who sustained an occupational injury or disease was unable “to take proceedings against a prior employer” under § 28-34-8 because that employer “was not under the workmen’s…”
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.