Opinion ID: 2169710
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Immunity from Suit

Text: Urena's final argument on appeal is that Theta is not immune from suit because his injury was occasioned by his participation in an employer-sponsored social activity, namely, an afternoon coffee break. General Laws 1956 § 28-33-2.1 of the Workers' Compensation Act provides as follows: Injuries occasioned by employer sponsored, non-work related activities. No compensation shall be allowed for the injury or death of an employee occasioned by or during his or her voluntary participation in employer sponsored social or non-professional athletic activity; provided, that the foregoing provision shall not bar the right of an employee to recover against an employer for tortious misconduct. The essence of this provision is that an employee who is injured during an employer-sponsored social event is not entitled to recover workers' compensation benefits, but nevertheless may bring an action in tort against the employer. However, Urena cites no authority, nor are we aware of any authority, to support the proposition that a coffee break qualifies as an employer-sponsored social event. To interpret § 28-33-2.1 this way would require us to deviate from the plain language of the statute and significantly expand its reach well beyond the General Assembly's intent. For these reasons, we reject Urena's argument that Theta was not immune from suit.