Opinion ID: 1999216
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Waiver of Common Law Rights

Text: The plaintiff contends that, notwithstanding her failure to preserve her common law rights in accordance with §§ 28-29-17 and 28-29-20, she may pursue a tort action against her employer. This argument, again, rests on Kulawas's contention that she has not accepted workers' compensation benefits for a work-related injury and, therefore, preservation of her common law rights in accordance with § 28-29-17 was unnecessary. We disagree. By its terms, a payment approved by a judge of the WCC, in accordance with § 28-33-25.1, shall not be deemed to be the payment of workers' compensation benefits, but shall be considered a compromise payment of a disputed claim. It is nonetheless a part of the overall compensation remedy that was enacted by the Legislature. The monetary award that Kulawas received was issued in accordance with the provisions of the act. The decree issued after a hearing and directed that the settlement amount was not subject to any third-party liens as set forth in § 28-33-27(b). The plaintiff sought and received the benefits of the workers' compensation remedy and she may not avoid the fair exchange for those benefits. An employee who has not retained his or her common law rights under § 28-29-17 is barred by the prohibitions contained in § 28-29-20 from bringing a tort action against his or her employer in situations in which workers' compensation benefits are appropriate. Lopes v. G.T.E. Products Corp., 560 A.2d 949, 950 (R.I. 1989) (citing Hornsby v. Southland Corp., 487 A.2d 1069, 1071 (R.I.1985)); see also, Diaz v. Darmet Corp., 694 A.2d 736, 737 (R.I.1997). Section 28-29-17, entitled Waiver of common law rights  Notice of claim of common law right[,] provides in relevant part that an employee: shall be held to have waived his or her right of action at common law to recover damages for personal injuries if he or she has not given his or her employer at the time of the contract of hire or appointment notice in writing that he or she claims that right and within ten (10) days after that has filed a copy of the notice with the director [of the department of labor and training]. One of the foundational precepts of the state's system of workers' compensation is that an injured employee is ensured timely and certain, though limited, compensation for workplace injuries in exchange for a waiver of the employee's right to pursue an action at law against the employer. Cianci v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 659 A.2d 662, 669 (R.I.1995) (quoting DiQuinzio v. Panciera Lease Co., 612 A.2d 40, 42 (R.I.1992)). An employee covered under the act has no common-law right of action against the insurer [or employer] because the act expressly addresses such claims and thus immunizes the carrier from liability under any common-law suit. Id. at 669-70. Because it is uncontroverted that the plaintiff availed herself of a workers' compensation remedy and accepted the benefits that were provided, that is, a compromise payment of a disputed claim, and did not preserve her common law right to recover damages for personal injuries, she is barred from bringing this action.