Case Title: Dodge v. Precision Construction Products, Inc.

Citation: 175 Vt. 101, 2003 VT 11, 820 A.2d 207

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-02-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
Dodge v. Precision Construction Products, Inc. (2001-525); 175 Vt. 101; 
820 A.2d 207

2003 VT 11

[Filed 14-Feb-2003]

       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.

                                 2003 VT 11

                                No. 2001-525

  Harold Dodge	                                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Commissioner of Labor and 
                                                 Industry

  Precision Construction Products, Inc.	         October Term, 2002

  R. Tasha Wallis, Commissioner

  Karl C. Anderson of Anderson & Eaton, P.C., Rutland, for
    Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Eric A. Johnson and Nicole Reuschel-Vincent of McCormick, Fitzpatrick,
    Kasper & Burchard, P.C., Burlington, for Defendant-Appellant.
                     

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse,(FN1)  Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

        
       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.   The main issue raised by this appeal is whether
  an action brought under the Vermont Workers' Compensation Act, 21 V.S.A. §§
  601-710, that is awaiting a formal hearing, survives the death of the
  claimant who had no dependents and whose death was unrelated to work. 
  Precision Construction Products, Inc. (Precision) appeals from a decision
  of the Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry (commissioner)
  granting a motion to substitute parties made by the co-administrators of
  the estate of claimant Harold Dodge, Jr. (administrators) and denying
  Precision's motion to dismiss.  Precision argues that claimant's workers'
  compensation claim does not survive his death.  We agree with the
  Commissioner that the claim survives, and affirm the denial of the motion
  to dismiss.

       ¶  2.  Claimant was employed by Precision from April 4, 1995, until he
  was terminated for performance issues on or about September 19, 2000.  In
  October 2000, he filed a workers' compensation claim for an alleged
  work-related injury that occurred on or before September 1, 2000.  Hartford
  Insurance Company, Precision's workers' compensation insurer, denied the
  claim on the ground that claimant had not alleged any injuries prior to
  being terminated.  Claimant appealed the denial, see 21 V.S.A. § 663, and
  requested interim benefits pursuant to 21 V.S.A. § 662(b).  The request for
  interim benefits, and a later request for reconsideration, were denied.

       ¶  3.  On April 29, 2001, while the workers' compensation claim
  awaited hearing pursuant to § 663, claimant died from causes unrelated to
  his alleged work-related injury. (FN2)  At the time of his death, claimant
  was not married and was without children or other dependents.  The
  administrators of claimant's estate moved pursuant to V.R.C.P. 25(a)(1) to
  substitute as claimants in the workers' compensation proceeding before the
  commissioner.  Precision opposed the motion and moved to dismiss the claim,
  arguing that it did not survive claimant's death.  The commissioner denied
  Precision's motion to dismiss and granted the administrators' motion to
  substitute parties.  Precision appeals these decisions. (FN3)

       ¶  4.  The precise issue on appeal, as expressed by the commissioner
  in her certified question to this Court, is as follows: "Does the contested
  workers' compensation action survive the death of the claimant who had no
  dependants and whose death was unrelated to work?"  Precision argues that
  claimant's claim is abated, and thus the administrators' claim for
  substitution fails, because neither the Vermont's Workers' Compensation Act
  (the "Act"), nor the general survival statutes, provide for the survival of
  a claim when a claimant with no dependents dies of nonwork-related causes
  prior to the adjudication of his claim.  We conclude that the Act does
  provide for the survival of the claim, in part, and that the remainder
  survives under the general survival statute, 14 V.S.A. § 1451, because it
  has vested.
   
       ¶  5.  The Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure apply to contested
  workers' compensation proceedings before the commissioner.  See Vermont
  Workers Compensation Rule 7.100 (2001).  Under V.R.C.P. 25(a)(1), "[i]f a
  party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court may order
  substitution of the proper parties."  Thus, V.R.C.P. 25(a)(1) has two
  requirements: (1) the claim must survive the death of the party, and (2)
  the party sought to be substituted must be a proper party.  State v.
  Therrien, 161 Vt. 26, 29,