Opinion
M.P. Nos. 938, 939.
July 24, 1970.
Martin Zucker, for petitioner.
Joseph Houlihan, for Newport Hospital; Jeremiah Lynch, for Eli Cohen, respondents.
In each of these civil actions, the plaintiff insurer seeks to recover moneys it paid pursuant to a decree of the Workmen's Compensation Commission to the defendant physician and the defendant hospital for the services they rendered to an injured employee. We reversed the decree on the ground that the employee had failed to prove his injury was work-related. The plaintiff's suits, which are based on the theory of unjust enrichment, are before us on the plaintiff's petitions for certiorari whereby it seeks a review of the denial by a justice of the Superior Court of a motion it had filed in each case for summary judgment. We have consolidated the petitions.
See Woods v. Safeway System, Inc., 101 R.I. 343, 223 A.2d 347.
See Woods v. Safeway System, Inc., 102 R.I. 493, 232 A.2d 121.
Upon consideration and reflection, we believe the issue presented herein to be of such extreme importance that we hereby direct the parties to file further briefs on the following questions:
1. Whether implicit in the provisions of G.L. 1956, § 28-35-33 is the condition that the recipient of any workmen's compensation benefits paid pursuant to a decree of the Workmen's Compensation Commission shall not be required to reimburse an employer or its insurance carrier for the benefits he has received under a decree ultimately held to be erroneous by this court?
2. If the answer to question one is in the affirmative, does such a condition violate any constitutional prohibition?
In filing their briefs, the parties shall comply with Rule No. 15. These cases are hereby assigned for hearing to the October 1970 calendar.