Case Title: Longe v. Boise Cascade Corp.

Citation: 171 Vt. 214, 762 A.2d 1248

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-09-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
Longe v Boise Cascade Corp. (98-384); 171 Vt. 214; 762 A.2d 1248 

[Filed 22-Sep-2000]

  NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
  40 as well as formal  revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. 
  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of  Decisions, Vermont Supreme
  Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any  errors in
  order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.

                                 No. 98-384

Ronald Longe	                               Supreme Court

                                               On Appeal from
     v.	                                       Department of Labor and Industry

Boise Cascade Corporation,	               November Term, 1999
Specialty Paperboard, Inc., and
Rock-Tenn Company, Mill Division, Inc.

Steve Janson, Commissioner

Peter J.R. Martin and Donald R. Pellman of Peter J.R. Martin & Associates, P.C., 
  St. Albans, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert G. Cain and Kevin L. Kite of Paul, Frank & Collins, Inc., Burlington, for 
  Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT:  Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Teachout, S.J., 
          Specially Assigned.

       SKOGLUND, J.  Boise Cascade Corporation (Boise) appeals from a
  decision of the  Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry
  (Department) that held Boise liable for  permanent partial disability (PPD)
  benefits to claimant Ronald Longe based on an injury he sustained  in 1983. 
  The Commissioner concluded that Boise breached its duty to investigate
  whether claimant  had suffered permanent impairment as a result of his 1983
  injury, and to inform claimant of his right  to PPD benefits.  Therefore,
  the Commissioner held that Boise was barred from raising the statute of 
  limitations as a defense to payment of PPD benefits.  On appeal, Boise
  argues:  (1) it had no duty 

 

  to investigate claimant's permanency status or to inform claimant of his
  right to PPD benefits; (2)  claimant's claim is barred by the statute of
  limitation; (3) claimant's claim is barred by laches; (4) the  Commissioner
  erred in assigning claimant a seventeen-percent impairment rating for
  purposes of  calculating his PPD benefits; (5) the Commissioner erred in
  awarding claimant interest from the date  he reached medical end result
  until the date Boise paid him PPD benefits; and (6) the Commissioner  erred
  in requiring Boise to pay claimant's attorney's fees and costs.  Because we
  agree with Boise's  first and second arguments, we reverse.

                                     I.

       The relevant facts are not in dispute.  Claimant worked at the
  Missisquoi paper mill.  Boise  owned the mill from approximately 1983 until
  June 30, 1989.  Specialty Paperboard, Inc.,  (Specialty), owned the mill
  from June 30, 1989 until March 15, 1991.  Since March 15, 1991, Rock-Tenn
  Company (Rock-Tenn), has owned the mill.  At all times relevant to this
  case, claimant was an  employee, and Boise, Specialty and Rock-Tenn were
  employers, within the meaning of Vermont's  Workers' Compensation Act (the
  Act), 21 V.S.A. § 601-711.

       On May 27, 1983, while performing in the course and scope of his
  employment at Boise,  claimant fell through a floor and injured his back. 
  He was diagnosed with a herniated disc in the  right L4-L5 region of his
  back, and underwent surgery in December 1984.  He subsequently filed a 
  workers' compensation claim and, on December 31, 1985, claimant and Boise
  entered into an  agreement, which the Department approved.  See 21 V.S.A. §
  662(a).  Under the agreement, Boise  paid claimant temporary total
  disability (TTD) benefits from November 23, 1984 until claimant  returned
  to work in May 1985, as well as medical expenses related to the 1983
  injury.  Claimant did  not request or apply for PPD benefits, and Boise did
  not provide them.  Nor did Boise investigate 

 

  whether claimant had suffered any permanent impairment as a result of his
  injury, or inform claimant  that, if he did suffer permanent impairment, he
  had a right to PPD benefits.  Claimant reached  medical end result in
  December 1985.

       In May 1991, claimant reinjured his back while working for Rock-Tenn. 
  In August 1991, he  underwent back surgery identical to the 1984 surgery. 
  He returned to work in December 1991.

       Claimant subsequently filed a claim against Boise, seeking workers'
  compensation benefits  for the 1991 injury.  Boise denied the claim in
  March 1992.  According to Boise, in 1991, claimant  suffered an
  aggravation, and not a recurrence, of the 1983 injury, and therefore, the
  employer at the  time of the 1991 injury, Rock-Tenn, was responsible for
  paying disability benefits.  See Pacher v.  Fairdale Farms, 166 Vt. 626,
  627-28,