Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 37-2-72 (2026)

Professional services — Medical and dental consultant services

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Before a state governmental entity procures the services of an individual consulting physician or dentist, it shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the chief purchasing officer the following:

(1) The need for the services, including the scope of the services to be performed;

(2) That no medical or dental personnel employed by the state on a full-time basis is available to perform the services;

(3) That funding is available, indicating from which sources the funding is to be provided; and

(4) That medical or dental consultants to be engaged meet the following minimum requirements:

(i) Appropriate professional license or certification; and

(ii) Competence to perform the services as reflected by formal training and education, general experience, and experience in providing the required services.

(b) Medical or dental services which are not provided by individual consulting physicians and dentists shall be obtained through competitive solicitation procedures where service providers shall demonstrate that they possess appropriate professional licenses or certifications and competence to perform the services — as reflected by formal training and education, general experience and experience in providing the required services.

(c) Nothing herein shall prevent the issuance of a public solicitation of requests for qualifications or the conduct of pricing negotiations prior to contract award. All requests for qualifications shall be solicited through utilization of the Rhode Island vendor information program (RIVIP) as set forth in § 37-2-17.1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2001–2012 · leading case: Absi v. Rhode Island Dep't of Admin., 785 A.2d 554 (R.I. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Absi v. Rhode Island Dep't of Admin., 785 A.2d 554 (R.I. 2001). · cites it 10× “” Under § 36-4-2, “[t]he classified service shall comprise all positions in the state service now existing or hereinafter established” — except positions specifically exempted by the Legislature which shall constitute the “unclassified service.”

In re Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc., 273 F.R.D. 424 (N.D. Ind. 2008). “For purposes of class certification, Rhode Island law compels driver-by-driver analysis no more than other states that employ the Restatement (Second) § 220 test, such as Arkansas, Kentucky, New Jersey, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, Indiana, and Florida. For the reasons set…”

In re Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc., Emp. Practices Litig., 283 F.R.D. 427 (N.D. Ind. 2012). “For purposes of class certification, Rhode Island law compels driver-by-driver analysis no more than other states that employ the Restatement (Second) § 220 test, such as Arkansas, Kentucky, New Jersey, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, Indiana, and Florida. For the reasons set…”

— R.I. Gen. Laws § 37-2-72(a)(2) — 1 case

Absi v. Rhode Island Dep't of Admin., 785 A.2d 554 (R.I. 2001). “” Under § 36-4-2, “[t]he classified service shall comprise all positions in the state service now existing or hereinafter established” — except positions specifically exempted by the Legislature which shall constitute the “unclassified service.”

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.