Case Title: Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Bressett-Roberge

Citation: 174 Vt. 518, 811 A.2d 171

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2002-08-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Bressett-Roberge (2001-254); 174 Vt. 518; 811 A.2d 171

[Filed 20-Aug-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-254

                               JUNE TERM, 2002


  Ethan Allen, Inc.	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Orleans Superior Court
                                       }	
  Jeannette Bressett-Roberge	       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 50-3-99 Oscv

                                                Trial Judge:  

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       This is a dispute over workers compensation responsibility for the
  injury to claimant, Jeannette Bressett-Roberge.  Claimant, claimant's
  previous employer Personnel Connection, and its insurance carrier, Liberty
  Mutual Insurance Co. (hereinafter Liberty), appeal from a decision of the
  superior court after trial that they and not appellees, Ethan Allen, Inc.,
  and its insurance carrier, Travelers Insurance Co. (hereinafter Travelers),
  are responsible.  They argue that the court erred in not using the last
  injurious exposure rule to determine which of successive employers must
  provide workers compensation benefits to claimant as a result of her carpal
  tunnel syndrome.  We affirm.

       Throughout the relevant period from December 2, 1996 through March 10,
  1997, claimant worked as a white sander in the Ethan Allen Furniture
  factory in Orleans, Vermont.  As a white sander, she prepared furniture for
  staining by sanding off marks by hand and filling holes with wood putty. 
  Up until February 24, 1997, she worked for Personnel Connection; on that
  day she was hired as an employee of Ethan Allen, Inc. and worked for it
  until she injured her back and left on March 10.  From the beginning of her
  work, claimant suffered pain, swelling and numbness in her hands and arms
  as a result of the repetitive motion of the sanding activity.  The doctors
  eventually diagnosed claimant's condition as carpal tunnel syndrome and
  prescribed corrective surgery.  The superior court made the following
  findings concerning the injury:

    Here, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that
    [claimant's] . . . bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was in
    existence, and sufficiently manifest that corrective surgery would
    have been required if she had made a formal complaint at that
    time, by the end of January 1997.  By then she was fully engaged
    with and exhibiting all the classic symptoms: swelling, numbness,
    tingling, night-time pain, and most importantly shooting pain up
    and down her arms.  Admittedly it is a progressive disease, but in
    her case that progression had clearly manifested itself as of the
    end of January 1997.  

 

    Conversely, even after her formal complaint and physical exam on
    2/14/97, her pain and complaints did not radically change or
    escalate, and she was able to keep performing the same job, and
    the same duties, until her separate back injury on 3/7/97 ended
    her career at Ethan Allen.  There is no specific, objective
    evidence that her condition materially worsened during the period
    from 2/14/97 to 3/7/97, or that her continuing job duties in fact
    exacerbated her injury as manifested in late January.

       Applying the traditional aggravation versus recurrence analysis, the
  superior court found that any symptoms that were evident after claimant
  went to work directly for Ethan Allen, Inc. were a recurrence of the
  preexisting condition and therefore Liberty, as the carrier for Personnel
  Connections, was responsible for claimant's workers compensation benefits. 
  In doing so, the court reversed a decision of the Commissioner of Labor and
  Industries that Travelers was responsible because claimant's last injurious
  exposure occurred while claimant worked for Ethan Allen directly.

       Liberty characterizes this case as a choice between the last injurious
  exposure rule and the aggravation versus recurrence rule to allocate
  workers compensation costs between successive employers, with the choice
  determining the outcome.  The facts as found by the trial court, however,
  do not support this characterization of the legal question.

       Here, the court found that claimant's work during the short period she
  was employed directly by Ethan Allen, Inc. did not contribute to her
  disability to any degree.  That finding is supported by some of the medical
  evidence and is not clearly erroneous.  Accordingly, it makes no difference
  what successive employer rule we adopt.  See 9 Larson's Workers'
  Compensation Law  153.02[4], at 153-8 (2000) (for last injurious exposure
  rule the second incident must contribute "even slightly to the causation of
  the disabling condition"); Pacher v. Fairdale Farms, 166 Vt. 626, 627,