Case Title: Wentworth v. Crawford & Co.

Citation: 174 Vt. 118, 807 A.2d 351

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2002-05-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
Wentworth v. Crawford & Company (2001-089); 174 Vt. 118; 807 A.2d 351

[Filed 24-May-2002]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 26-Jul-2002]

       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. 2001-089



Joan Wentworth	                                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         Chittenden Superior Court


Crawford and Company	                         January Term, 2002


Matthew I. Katz, J.

Thomas C. Nuovo of Bauer, Anderson & Gravel, Burlington, for 
  Plaintiff-Appellant.

James E. Preston of Pierson, Wadhams, Quinn & Yates, Burlington, for 
  Defendant-Appellee.


PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.


       AMESTOY, C.J.   Plaintiff Joan Wentworth appeals the trial court's
  dismissal of her  negligence complaint against defendant Crawford &
  Company, a firm Wentworth's employer hired  to provide her with vocational
  rehabilitation benefits after a workplace injury.  The trial court 
  dismissed Wentworth's complaint pursuant to V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) because it
  determined that the  Workers' Compensation Act provided the exclusive
  remedy for harm flowing from her workplace  injury.  We affirm, although on
  different grounds.  See Sorge v. State, 171 Vt. 171, 174 n.*,