R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-35-10 (2026)

Duplicates of documents furnished to employee — Inadmissibility of documents when copies not furnished

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Where an employer, his or her insurer, or the agents or independent contractors of either obtains from an injured employee any paper, document, report, statement, or agreement, including hospital records, nurses’ notes, personnel records, reports, or statements by forepersons or any other supervisory employees at the injured employee’s place of employment, whether signed or unsigned, and regardless of the mode of obtaining it, concerning compensation, the injured employee shall receive an exact duplicate original copy of that paper, document, report, statement, or agreement, including hospital records, nurses’ notes, personnel records, reports, or statements by forepersons or any other supervisory employees at the injured employee’s place of employment which shall be signed by a duly authorized agent or the employer or his or her insurer. The paper, document, report, statement, or agreement, including hospital records, nurses’ notes, personnel records, reports, or statements by forepersons or any other supervisory employees at the injured employee’s place of employment, shall be furnished to the employee at the time it is obtained, and a copy shall also be furnished to the employee’s attorney immediately upon request by that attorney. If a copy of a paper, document, report, statement, or agreement, including hospital records, nurses’ notes, personnel records, reports, or statements by forepersons or any other supervisory employees at the injured employee’s place of employment is not furnished strictly in accordance with this section, nothing contained in it may be used by an employer or his or her insurer or attorney for direct or cross-examination of the employee. The individual obtaining it may not testify in any proceeding and the paper, document, report, statement, or agreement, including hospital records, nurses’ notes, personnel records, reports, or statements by forepersons or any other supervisory employees at the injured employee’s place of employment shall be inadmissible in any proceeding, if objection by the employee to its admission is made.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1971–1985 · leading case: Davol, Inc. v. Aguiar, 463 A.2d 170 (R.I. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Davol, Inc. v. Aguiar, 463 A.2d 170 (R.I. 1983). · cites it 8× “1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-35-10. 1 *172 However, Dr. Córvese was allowed to testify from bis report that the employee was “improved but not quite asymptomatic, persistent complaints of the left shoulder and wrist, no notable physical findings other than for tenderness to…”
Giordiano v. Uniroyal, Inc., 273 A.2d 855 (R.I. 1971). · cites it 14× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §28-35-10, as amended by P. L. 1969, chap.”
Worcester Textile Co. v. Morales, 468 A.2d 279 (R.I. 1983). · cites it 3× “1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-35-10 and also relied on evidence that violated the rule barring the use of hearsay testimony.”
John J. Orr & Sons, Inc. v. Waite, 479 A.2d 721 (R.I. 1984). ““At any time prior to the pre-trial conference the parties shall submit to the workers’ compensation commission medical reports and documentary evidence as described in § 28-35-10. The commissioner may make a preliminary determination as to the right of the employee to receive…”
Afonso v. Pierce Buick, Inc., 478 A.2d 560 (R.I. 1984). · cites it 9× “” The employer contends in the instant appeal that the appellate commission committed prejudicial error in expunging from the record a statement taken from a co-employee of employee pursuant to G.”
Felicio v. United Wire & Supply Corp., 492 A.2d 1228 (R.I. 1985). · cites it 5× “The employee raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the commission erred when it credited employer for benefits paid under the nonprejudicial agreement; (2) the commission erred in finding that employee was not incapacitated after March 5, 1981; and (3) the commission erred…”
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.