Providence Personal Injury Lawyer

Rhode Island Workers' Compensation Law

Sam Bazar — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:01:30 GMT

Rhode Island Workers' Compensation System (Part I)

This is the first entry of a series on the Rhode Island Workers' Compensation system. The purpose of this series is to inform our readers about the basics of the Rhode Island Workers' Compensation law. This series will also address certain aspects of the Longshoreman and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.

What is Workers' Compensation?

The Workers' Compensation system was initially devised to address the confounding number of injuries sustained by workers in the course of their employment, and the inability of traditional tort law to provide relief for these workers. Traditional tort law required injured workers to prove that the employer was negligent by not providing a safe work place, safe tools, and a sufficient number of co-workers to safely perform the job. However, the employer could avoid liability by pleading contributory negligence, assumption of the risk, or by alleging that the injury was caused by a fellow worker. Most employees were not able to collect damages under this system. Even when employees could prove negligence on the part of the employer, the traditional tort system took far too long in cases where injured employees receiving no income or could not afford costly medical treatment for their injuries. With these issues in mind, the workers' compensation system was devised.

Rhode Island Workers' Compensation System

The Workers' Compensation act is intended to "impose upon the employer the burden of taking care of the casualties occurring in his/her employment, thus preventing the injured employee from becoming a public charge." See Geigy Chemical Corp. v. Zuckerman, 106 R.I. 534, 541 (1970). The objective of the Rhode Island Workers' Compensation system is to provide an efficient and cost effective way to compensate employees injured at work for medical expenses and lost wages. The employer buys an insurance policy to cover injuries to employees in the workplace. The employer's insurance company pays claims that are covered under the employer's insurance policy.

The system was designed as a compromise between employers and employees. The Rhode Island Workers' Compensation system is a form of no fault insurance. In other words, you do not have to prove that your injury was caused by someone else's negligence or wrong doing in order to collect benefits. In fact, a work injury can be caused by the employees own negligence and they still may collect benefits.

However, injured employees may not collect money for pain and suffering as they would in a typical negligence claim litigated under principles of tort law such as an automobile accident or a slip and fall. In addition, injured employees only receive a percentage of their lost wages as calculated by a formula set forth in the Workers' Compensation Act. However, just like in a negligence claim, the injured employee may receive benefits for permanent scarring or loss of function to certain body parts resulting from the accident at work.

The other critical element of the Rhode Island Workers' Compensation system is that benefits are limited in duration. Sweeping law changes to the Rhode Island Workers' Compensation Act in 1990 and 1992 created a system whereby it is nearly impossible for an injured employee to receive more than six years of weekly workers' compensation benefits replacing their lost earning when they are partially disabled from work (that is when they can perform some forms of work but not their former job).

Workers' Compensation benefits are inherent in every employment contract written or not. Certain conditions must exist for an injured person to be eligible to collect benefits. The injured person must be an "employee" as defined by the Rhode Island Workers' Compensation Act. The employee must have been hired in Rhode Island or injured in Rhode Island.

There are sections of the Rhode Island Workers' Compensation Act that exclude certain people from being covered by the Act. In general, employers with one or more employees are required to carry workers' compensation insurance. Sole proprietors, partners, certain real estate, agricultural and domestic service employees are not covered. Police, firefighters, and federal employees are covered under different compensation programs. Municipal employees are only covered if the municipality has chosen to be covered. Independent contractors are not covered. Whether or not someone is defined as an independent contractor is complicated and could be the subject of its own article.

This was meant of a very broad overview of workers' compensation and the Rhode Island Workers' Compensation system. There are clearly many more details and nuances involved in the system which we will attempt to cover in future blog entries.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Sam Bazar

Liability for alcohol consumption at your home

Sam Bazar — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:28:58 GMT

Civil Liability Generally

The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently restated its position, in the case of Willis v. Omar, that a social host owes no duty to a third party for injuries caused by an intoxicated guest unless a special relationship exists between the host and the intoxicated person. The "special relationship" in which the Court has historically imposed liability on the social host is the situation in which the social host illegally provides alcohol to minors with injury resulting.

Willis involved a situation where a man age 24 and his girlfriend age 22 were served Long Island Iced Tea fortified with Cabo Wabo Tequila "non-stop" over a period of more than three hours while guests at another couple's home. The host couple encouraged the heavy drinking with the husband saying "You're Irish. You can do better than that." When the young man and his girlfriend left that night they were involved in an auto accident in which the girlfriend, who was the passenger in the car, suffered severe injuries, resulting in the amputation of her left leg. Blood alcohol tests administered at Rhode Island Hospital that night indicated that the young man's blood alcohol was .196 and his girlfriend's was .261.

In the case of Martin v. Marciano, decided 4 years prior to Willis, the defendant provided kegs of beer and other alcoholic beverages to underage partygoers. An altercation arose, fueled by alcohol, during which the plaintiff was struck in the head by an underage drinker wielding a baseball bat. The Court held that the defendant was liable for the damages caused by an underage drinker's poor party etiquette. A party host who makes alcohol available to an underage guest owes a duty of reasonable care to protect all of his guests from harm, including criminal assault. Such a duty exists because allowing underage drinking gives rise to a special duty based on public policy and forseeablilty grounds. As the court state in the Martin case, "to avoid assuming a duty of protection, the adult property owner must simply comply with existing law and refuse to provide alcohol or condone underage drinking on his or her property."

Although supplying underage people with alcohol at a high school party may trigger a special relationship in Rhode Island, serving alcohol to an adult guest does not. The Rhode Island Supreme Court first held in the case of Ferreira v. Strack that a social host owed no duty of care to individuals injured by a drunk driver who was drinking alcohol that he himself brought to the social hosts home. And now in Willis v. Omar the Court has held that a social host owed no duty of care to individual injured by a drunk driver who was drinking alcohol that was provided and served by the social host.

The plaintiff in Willis urged to Court to "create a new frontier that will better today's society and provide a remedy for a victim in circumstances in which the social host's hospitality leads to "an atmosphere of reckless drinking and driving."

The Court declined the invitation stating that "although we are sympathetic to plaintiff and to some of the public-policy issues that she addresses, we decline.to overturn well-settled precedent." The Court then went on to say that the issue may be addressed through the legislative process if such is the desire of the voters and lawmakers.

Dram Shop Liability

It should be noted that these decisions do not apply to licensed alcoholic beverage servers (such as bars and restaurants) and their agents (see R.I. General Laws §§ 3-14-1, et seq. (1998)), or those legally required to be licensed. A licensed server may be liable for damages that occur to someone injured a drunk driver when liquor is served to a visibly intoxicated person and when a reasonably prudent person in similar circumstances would know the individual being served is intoxicated.

Criminal Liability

Social hosts who serve underage drinkers in their homes have been subject to criminal penalties in Rhode Island dating back about two years. However, Barrington police discovered a loophole earlier this year when breaking up a keg party in the yard of a social host of legal age, with numerous underage drinkers present. They found that they couldn't charge the owner of the house as a "social host" because the law at the time specified penalties only for underage drinking "in his or her residence." A new law was enacted this summer intended to close this loophole.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Sam Bazar

Spiderman Water Bottles Sold at Sears Recalled Due to Choking Hazard

Jenny Albano — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:16:22 GMT

Fast Forward LLC, in conjunction with the CPSC, is recalling about 6,600 Spiderman Water Bottles due to a choking hazard.

Screws under the bottle's lid can come loose and fall into the cup, posing a choking hazard to children. The firm has received three reports of screws coming loose under the water bottle's lid. No injuries have been reported.

The water bottles have a picture of Spiderman on the drinking bottle and there is a Spiderman figure on top of the kid. The water bottle is red, black, blue and white and is night inches high.

The recalled product was sold at Sears stores across the U.S. from July 2007 to August 2007 and was manufactured in China.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Careful Using Space Heaters During the Winter

Jenny Albano — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:16:11 GMT

Space heaters can pose a significant risk of fire or electrical shocks if they are not used properly and safely. Space heaters are the leading cause of home fires during December, January and February-but such disasters can be prevented with a few simple precautions.

When used improperly, space heaters-gas-fueled, kerosene-fueled or electric, fixed or portable, wood stoves and fireplaces can all lead to fires. Portable kerosene heaters, which are illegal in some states, have the highest rate of fire deaths per household. Room gas heaters pose a similar risk of death from unvented carbon monoxide.

If you are in the market for a space heater this winter you should follow these safety tips from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.

�?� Make sure and read the instructions and warning labels before using the heater.
�?� Place the heater on a level, flat surface, so that it cannot fall or become damaged.
�?� Do not use the heater in a damp or wet area unless it is designed for outdoor use or in bathrooms.
�?� Keep combustible materials, like furniture, bedding, curtains, at least 3 feet from the heater. Also, do not block the air intake or outlet on a heater.
�?� Don't use a heater near any flammable materials such as paint, matches, etc.
�?� Make sure the heater is out of the reach of children and pets.
�?� Check for a secure plug/outlet fit and if the plug does not fit perfectly into the outlet or if the plug becomes very hot do not use that outlet.
�?� Never plug another electrical device into the same outlet or extension cord as your heater because it could result in overheating. Also inspect the electric cord occasionally so there is no safety risk.
�?� Never leave an operating heater unattended and make sure to unplug the heater when it is not being used.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

President Bush Vetoes Children's Health Insurance Program

Courtney Mills — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:31:15 GMT

President Bush exerted his veto power for the fourth time of his presidency today, upsetting legislation that would expand a children's healthcare program.

Democrats in Congress appeared undaunted about overriding the President's veto of the legislation, but Democratic senators on the hill are not likely to muster the 2/3 majority required to reverse the veto.

This law would benefit lower income children by ensuring federal healthcare grants to states. Over a period of five years the government would spend an additional $35 billion on the Children's Health Insurance Program, funded by an increase in the tobacco tax to 61 cents per pack. The new bill would also decrease funding availability to states that allow CHIP families at more than three times above the poverty level, or about $60,000 for a four member family.

Democratic groups such as MoveOn.org have organized rallies in the coming weeks to register their complaints with the President over his veto of the legislation. Such groups are insisting that Mr. Bush is entirely indifferent to the health care needs of lower income children.

Republican opposition groups maintain they were left out of key policy negotiations, so that the veto will offer the opportunity to revisit these parts of the bill in session.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Courtney Mills

Shaw's Supermarkets Beef Patties Recall Across New England

Courtney Mills — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 09:27:18 GMT

Fairbanks Farms, a large national retail supplier of ground beef patties and retail packaged meat products, has recalled certain lots of its packaged beef patties due to fear of E. coli contamination.

Fairbanks announced the recall of the beef patties in the New England distribution area on Wednesday. The patties might have been purchased by consumers between 7am and 11am in Shaw's Supermarkets across New England under the store's brand name label.

Most of the tainted meat supply was halted at Fairbanks storage warehouses before shipment to Shaw's Supermarkets, but some product did reach stores. Consumers are advised to throw out any Shaw's Supermarket meat purchased yesterday morning.

According to reports, Shaw's Supermarkets in Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts received shipments of the affected beef patties, and the affected product was coded on the nutrition information label with a time stamp between 17:05 and 17:25.

E . Coli is a very serious gastrointestinal illness and can be fatal in young children, the elderly, and the immunosuppressed.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Courtney Mills

Man Dies after Rhode Island Surgeon Operates on Wrong Side of Head

Courtney Mills — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:56:24 GMT

A man has died a few weeks after his neurosurgeon operated on the wrong side of his brain.

As an emergency operation at Rhode Island Hospital was underway to stanch bleeding in a patient's brain, Dr. Frederick Harrington's nurse practitioner allegedly neglected to record which side of his patient's head needed surgery. According to reports, when another nurse pointed out what required information was lacking, the doctor proceeded without consulting any patient charts and operated on the wrong side of the brain. When the doctor realized what he had done, he righted himself and operated on the correct side of the brain.

The hospital suspended Dr. Harrington's surgical privileges pending a review into the incident. State health authorities are also looking into the botched operation. According to the Boston Globe, this is the third wrong-side surgery error at Rhode Island Hospital's neurosurgery unit in six years.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section on Medical Malpractice and Negligent Care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Courtney Mills

3 Deaths in Rollover Car Crash

Courtney Mills — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:00:00 GMT

Three people died in a rollover crash on Thursday afternoon, and a fourth was injured, in Tiverton, Rhode Island, the police said. The driver was apparently traveling at a high rate of speed and lost control of the vehicle, causing his car to edge off the roadway and flip over, sliding onto its roof. The accident occurred at approximately 5:00pm.

The driver and two of the passengers were killed in the accident, and the fourth surviving passenger was removed and taken to Charlton Memorial Hospital. He is reported to be in stable condition. Our thoughts and hopes are with their families.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Courtney Mills

Hip Protectors Don't Stop Fractures in Falls

Jenny Albano — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:44:56 GMT

A study in The Journal of the American Medical Association suggests that padded hip protectors worn by the elderly do not prevent fractures if a person falls.

The study monitored 1,000 nursing home residents at an average age of 85. The researchers had the participants wear the protector on one hip and leave the other one free to compare the results. After 20 months, the fracture rate between the protected hip and the unprotected hip was no different.

Hip fractures are especially dangerous for older people, and can lead to serious illness and death. The researchers suggested that as new materials were invented, better protection might be possible.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Drugs, Medical Devices, and Implants.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

FDA Stops Import of Chinese Fish

Jenny Albano — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:10:35 GMT

On Thursday, June 28, the FDA banned the import of five different kinds of fish and shrimp from China. The seafood contained drugs that have been found to cause cancer.

The species include catfish, shrimp, eels, basa -- a kind of catfish -- and the carp-like dace. The FDA is not ordering that the products be pulled out of restaurants or from supermarket shelves but said that all incoming shipments would be stopped immediately. The chemicals found in the food "could cause health problems if consumed over a long period of time," said David Acheson, the FDA's assistant commissioner for food protection.

This ban on imports comes after numerous different products have been recalled from the country over the past couple of months. The Chinese government has recently been trying to enforce safety regulations more strictly in food processing plants.

The chemical found in the banned seafood was called malachite green. The drug is used to cure fungal infections in fish. The FDA states "there is no imminent threat to the public". There have been no recorded illnesses and the chemicals found in the fish were just over detectable levels.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano