Case Title: Peabody v. Home Insurance Company

Citation: 170 Vt. 635, 751 A.2d 783

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-04-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
Peabody v. Home Insurance Company (99-057); 170 Vt. 635; 751 A.2d 783

[Filed 06-Apr-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-057

                              MARCH TERM, 2000

Judith Peabody	                       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Department of Labor & Industry
                                       }	
Home Insurance Company and 	       }
Comprehensive Rehabilitation           }
Associates	                       }	DOCKET NO. G-06060                     
 	

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       This is a worker's compensation case in which claimant appeals from a
  decision of the  Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry
  denying her vocational rehabilitation  services, specifically reimbursement
  for the cost of obtaining her master's degree.  We address  three issues:
  (1) whether this Court has jurisdiction to determine if the notice of
  appeal was timely  where the Commissioner refused to certify this issue for
  appeal, (2) whether the thirty-day period  for filing a notice of appeal
  ran from the date the Commissioner signed the decision or the date  the
  decision was mailed to claimant, and (3) whether, to be entitled to
  vocational rehabilitation  services, claimant must show that she is unable
  to do any work, or any suitable work, for which  she has previous training
  or experience.  We hold that (1) we have jurisdiction to determine  whether
  the notice of appeal was timely, (2) the notice of appeal was timely, and
  (3) claimant must  show that she is unable to do any suitable work to be
  entitled to vocational rehabilitative services.  Accordingly, we remand to
  the Commissioner for further proceedings.

       Claimant was employed as a senior rehabilitation specialist at
  Comprehensive Rehabilitation  Associates for approximately ten years.  In
  1991, claimant had a work-related accident causing  back injury.  Her job
  required driving long distances, which caused further back injury, and the 
  back injury caused claimant depression.  She left her position in July 1993
  due to permanent  physical and psychological work-related injuries. 
  Claimant believed that she would need a  master's degree in counseling to
  obtain employment that would approximate her pre-injury annual  wage of
  $37,500.  

       Claimant first sought vocational rehabilitation services from
  vocational counselor Richard  Phillips.  Phillips originally agreed with
  claimant that it would be necessary for her to obtain a  master's degree in
  counseling, but after speaking with a Department employee, Phillips changed 
  his position.  Phillips found that claimant made an effort to find
  employment, but would not  consider positions that did not approximate her
  pre-injury wage.  He noted that she could,  however, have found employment
  in the counseling field with the State of Vermont or in the  private sector
  if wage had not been a factor.

 

       Claimant enrolled in a master's program at Johnson State College,
  obtained her master's  degree and pursued her claim for tuition
  reimbursement of $13,755.10.  At the worker's  compensation hearing,
  claimant's vocational rehabilitation expert, Myron Smith, found that 
  claimant had been qualified for numerous jobs in the Vermont social
  services sector but none of  the jobs, including the four jobs identified
  by Phillips, offered a reasonably comparable wage to  her pre-injury
  salary.  Based on the Department's worker's compensation regulations of
  April 1,  1995, Smith concluded that academic benefits were the most
  effective solution for claimant to  attain "suitable" employment.  

       The Commissioner denied claimant's request for vocational
  rehabilitation services.  He  concluded that claimant had failed to meet
  her initial burden under 21 V.S.A. § 641(b), (FN1)  which provides:

     When as a result of an injury covered by this chapter, an employee is 
     unable to perform work for which he has previous training or 
     experience, he shall be entitled to such vocational rehabilitation 
     services, including retraining and job placement, as may be reasonably 
     necessary to restore him to suitable employment.

  The Commissioner concluded that claimant had failed to prove that she was
  unable to perform  work for which she has previous training or experience. 
  He held that claimant's refusal to  consider jobs that did not approximate
  her pre-injury wage was a personal choice that did not  entitle her to
  rehabilitation benefits.  Because claimant did not meet the necessary
  threshold  showing, the Commissioner did not reach the second issue of
  whether a master's degree was  reasonably necessary to restore her to
  suitable employment.

       Claimant appealed from the Commissioner's decision, requesting that
  the Commissioner  certify the following question: Whether claimant's
  vocational benefits were prematurely  terminated and, if so, whether the
  attainment of a master's degree was necessary to find  employment? 
  Defendants proposed for certification: (1) Whether this Court has
  jurisdiction over  this appeal, and (2) Did the Commissioner commit
  reversible error in denying claimant's claim  for vocational rehabilitation
  benefits when the Commissioner determined that claimant was able  to
  perform work for which she had previous training or experience?  The
  Commissioner certified  claimant's question, and defendants appeal the
  Commissioner's refusal to certify their proposed  questions.

       Initially, we address whether this Court may consider defendants'
  first proposed question  for certification -- whether this Court has
  jurisdiction over this appeal -- when the Commissioner  declined to certify
  the question.  The authority for appealing to this Court from a worker's 
  compensation decision of the Commissioner is in 21 V.S.A. § 672, which
  provides in part: "The 

 

  jurisdiction of such court shall be limited to a review of questions of law
  certified to it by the  commissioner."  "It is axiomatic that a court
  cannot undertake to decide any issues of law, other  than its own
  jurisdiction, without having been given the necessary authority to deal
  with the  particular controversy."  Fisher v. Town of Marlboro, 132 Vt.
  533, 534,