Opinion ID: 1999216
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: issues

Text: Before this Court, plaintiff contends that it was error for the hearing justice to grant summary judgment in favor of the hospital because plaintiff's claim was not barred by the exclusivity provision of the act. The plaintiff argues that because the terms of the settlement agreement, as well as the release and decree, provide that plaintiff's injury was not work-related, it was not covered by the act and the exclusivity provision has no relevance in this case. As support for this contention, plaintiff directs our attention to cases involving the going-and-coming rule in workers' compensation jurisprudence. According to plaintiff, the hospital apparently relied upon the going-and-coming rule when it denied Kulawas's claim for benefits. [4] However, defendant argues that this assertion is unsupported by any written or oral argument submitted before the [WCC] or the Superior Court. Before this Court, defendant contends that the injury resulted from a fall that was idiopathic in nature. [5] However, our holding does not depend on the resolution of this issue because the parties reached a deny-and-dismiss settlement in the WCC. Lastly, plaintiff argues that she is entitled to sue the hospital for negligence notwithstanding her failure to preserve her common law right to do so in accordance with §§ 28-29-17 and 28-29-20. The plaintiff bases this argument on her contention that she did not receive workers' compensation benefits, and, therefore, these statutes do not apply.