(a) At any time after the date of the approval of any agreement or at any time after the
date of the entry of any decree concerning compensation, and if compensation has ceased
under the agreement or decree, within ten (10) years after that, any agreement, award,
order, finding, or decree may be from time to time reviewed by the workers’ compensation
court, upon its own motion or upon a petition of either party upon forms prescribed
by the court, after due notice to the interested parties:
(1) Upon the ground that the:
(i) Incapacity of the injured employee has diminished, ended, increased, or returned;
(ii) Employee has recovered from the effects of his or her work-related injury and is disabled
only as a result of a preexisting condition;
(iii) Employee is able to return to the same work he or she performed at the time of his
or her injury;
(iv) Employee has refused an offer of suitable employment; or
(v) Weekly compensation payments have been based upon an erroneous average weekly wage;
or
(2) Regarding any other obligation established under chapters 29 — 38 of this title.
(b) Upon this review, the workers’ compensation court may decrease, suspend, increase,
commence, or recommence compensation payments in accordance with the facts, or make
any other order that the justice of the case may require. No review shall affect the
agreement, award, order, finding, or decree as regards money already paid, except
that an award increasing the compensation rate may be made effective from the date
of the injury, and except that if any part of the compensation due or to become due
is unpaid, an award decreasing the compensation rate may be made effective from the
date of injury, and any payments made prior thereto in excess of the decreased rate
shall be deducted from any unpaid compensation, in the manner and by the methods that
may be determined by the workers’ compensation court.
(c) Relief on review shall not be denied an employee or granted an employer or his or
her insurer on the grounds that the employee is incapacitated by an injury or disease
that is different from the one for which the employee was paid compensation if the
injury or disease incapacitating the employee results from an injury or disease for
which the employee was paid compensation.
Notes of Decisions
Leviton Mfg. Co. v. Lillibridge, 387 A.2d 1034 (R.I. 1978).
· cites it 3× “1956 (1968 Reenactment) §28-35-45 on the basis that the employee’s disability for work had ended.”
Thompson v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 251 A.2d 403 (R.I. 1969).
· cites it 11× “However, he also found that the petition having been brought April 18, 1967, was barred by §28-35-45 (see footnote 1) because more than ten years had passed since the last payment of weekly compensation, such last payment for partial incapacity having been made November 27, 1955.”
Molony & Rubien Constr. Co. v. Segrella, 373 A.2d 816 (R.I. 1977).
· cites it 4× “1956 (1968 Reenactment) §28-35-45, has declared that any agreement or decree calling for the payment of compensation can be reviewed at any time during the time compensation is being paid.”
Andreozzi v. D'ANTUONO, 319 A.2d 16 (R.I. 1974).
· cites it 3× “There the issue was whether the payment of medical bills could be considered as a payment of compensation under §28-35-45, *158 which provided that the commission could review any agreement or decree within ten years after the cessation of compensation payments.”
Salazar v. Mach. Works, Inc., 665 A.2d 567 (R.I. 1995).
· cites it 3× “The plaintiff, however, contended that the petition for payment of the *568 hospital bill was governed by § 28-35-45 that was amended in 1990 by P.”
Coletta v. Leviton Mfg. Co., 437 A.2d 1380 (R.I. 1981).
· cites it 2× “1956 (1968 Reenactment) § 28-35-45, alleging that her incapacity for work resulting from the injuries sustained on February 1, 1974, had increased.”
Proulx v. French Worsted Co., 199 A.2d 901 (R.I. 1964).
· cites it 4× “It first contends that it was error to entertain petitioner's claim for benefits since it was made by way of a petition to review.”
Beauchesne v. David London & Co., 375 A.2d 920 (R.I. 1977).
“And, secondly, the company could have invoked the terms of §28-35-45 and filed a petition for review and modification of the award.”
Ruggiero v. City of Providence, 889 A.2d 691 (R.I. 2005).
· cites it 2× “ects of his or her work-related injury and is disabled only as a result of a preexisting condition; “(in) Employee is able to return to the same work which he or she performed at the time of his or her injury; “(iv) Employee has refused an offer of suitable employment; or “(v)…”
Silva v. Brown & Sharpe Mfg. Co., 524 A.2d 571 (R.I. 1987).
· cites it 3× “1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-35-45. We disagree. The facts in this case are not in dispute.”
Martinez v. Bar-Tan Mfg., 521 A.2d 134 (R.I. 1987).
· cites it 2× “1956 (1986 Reenactment) § 28-35-45, either the employer or the employee may file a petition to review the compensation decree currently awarding or terminating benefits on the grounds that the incapacity of the injured employee has diminished, ended, increased, or returned and…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-35-45(c) — 1 case
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-35-45(e) — 1 case
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.