Manzi v. State
| Decision Date | 13 January 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-544-C,95-544-C |
| Citation | 687 A.2d 461 |
| Parties | Anthony MANZI et al. v. STATE of Rhode Island et al. A. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Robert J. Cosentino, Providence.
Rebecca Tedford Partington, James Lee, Providence.
This matter came before a panel of the Supreme Court for oral argument on December 17, 1996, pursuant to an order that directed the plaintiffs to show cause why the issues raised by their appeal should not be summarily decided. The plaintiffs, Anthony Manzi, Paula Manzi, and their sons, Michael Manzi and Anthony Manzi, Jr., appealed from a judgment entered for the defendants, the State of Rhode Island, Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) and James P. O'Donnell, after a Superior Court trial judge granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' civil action.
After hearing the oral arguments and reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown, and therefore the case will be decided at this time.
On March 24, 1995, plaintiffs filed a claim against defendants in Superior Court alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of a duty of confidentiality, invasion of privacy and breach of a contractual duty of good faith and dealings. The claim arose out of Anthony Manzi's employment as a juvenile program worker at the Rhode Island Training School for Boys. The plaintiffs contended that James O'Donnell, acting superintendent at the training school, told Craig Price, an inmate, that Manzi was cooperating with the Attorney General in an investigation of Price. Manzi alleged that defendants were negligent in disclosing the information and that, as a result, Price made threatening statements to him and phone calls to his home, thereby causing plaintiffs to suffer emotional and physical distress.
On July 18, 1995, the trial justice heard arguments on defendants' motion to dismiss, and granted the motion. On July 27, 1995, plaintiffs appealed.
The defendants contended that plaintiffs' claims were barred because Anthony Manzi had previously settled a workers' compensation claim for $4,000 pursuant to G.L.1956 (1986 Reenactment) § 28-33-25.1 for the same injuries set forth in his civil complaint. The defendants further contended that Manzi had released all claims under the Rhode Island Workers' Compensation Act pursuant to an executed release and that Manzi's claims were barred under G.L.1956 (1986 Reenactment) § 28-29-20. Finally, defendants argued that Manzi's wife's and children's claims were derivative claims that would fail if Manzi's claims failed and that defendants owed no duty to the wife and children.
The plaintiffs argued that pursuant to § 28-29-20, a party is completely barred from filing a civil action only if he was successful in a workers' compensation claim and that because Manzi's workers' compensation claim was denied and dismissed, and because under § 28-33-25.1 settlements are deemed "compromise payments of a disputed claim" and not payment of workers' compensation benefits, Manzi could proceed with his civil action. The plaintiffs further contended that at the time Manzi executed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nassa v. Hook-SupeRx, Inc.
...myself, and what remains is bestial."). 8. W. Shakespeare, King Richard II, act 1, sc. 1. 9. The defendants rely heavily on Manzi v. State, 687 A.2d 461 (R.I.1997) (mem.). There, the WCA's exclusive-remedy statute barred the employee's invasion-of-privacy claims because the employee previou......
-
Cady v. IMC Mortg. Co.
...apply and plaintiff would be barred from bringing additional claims arising from the same injury in the Superior Court. Manzi v. State, 687 A.2d 461, 462 (R.I.1997) (mem.). This did not occur, however, as plaintiff sought relief in the Superior Court. While defendants were welcome to raise ......
-
Alves v. Cintas Corp. No. 2
...two occasions, directly stated that the exclusivity provision of the WCA bars claims alleging violation of § 9-1-28.1. See Manzi v. State, 687 A.2d 461, 461-62; Folan, 723 A.2d 287, 291-92 (recognizing Manzi for the proposition that an "exclusivity clause bars [a] subsequent statutory claim......
-
Kulawas v. R.I. Hosp., 2008-223-Appeal.
...were erroneous and ultra vires, estoppel was not available. Id. Additionally, we are of the opinion that our holding in Manzi v. State, 687 A.2d 461 (R.I.1997) (mem.), controls the result in this case. In Manzi, summary judgment was entered with respect to the plaintiff's tort claim against......