Case Title: Sanz v. Douglas Collins Construction

Citation: 180 Vt. 619, 2006 VT 102, 910 A.2d 914

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-10-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
Sanz v. Douglas Collins Construction (2005-117); 180 Vt. 619; 910 A.2d 914

2006 VT 102

[Filed 04-Oct-2006]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 102

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-117

                             FEBRUARY TERM, 2006


  Antonio Sanz                         }         APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.                              }         Commissioner of Labor & 
                                       }         Industry
                                       }  
  Douglas Collins Construction         }
                                       }         DOCKET NO. L-14865


             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       ¶  1.  Claimant Antonio Sanz appeals the Commissioner of Labor and
  Industry's denial of his request for a lump sum payment of his permanent
  total disability (PTD) workers' compensation benefits.  The Commissioner
  concluded that a 2000 amendment to 21 V.S.A. § 652 allowing PTD benefits to
  be paid in a lump sum was a substantive change to the law that could not be
  given retroactive effect.  Claimant argues that the Commissioner erred in
  not applying the statute as amended.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  The relevant facts of this case are not disputed.  Claimant
  was seriously injured on January 30, 1998, when, in the course of his
  employment with Douglas Collins Construction ("employer"), he hit his head
  on a ceiling rafter and fell fifteen feet from the top of a ladder. 
  Claimant's injuries include incomplete quadriplegia with central spinal
  cord syndrome leaving him permanently and totally disabled. 

       ¶  3.  In April of 2003, employer's independent medical examiner
  placed claimant at his medical end result and assessed claimant with a 60%
  whole person impairment.  The parties disputed the severity of claimant's
  permanent disability and, on February 3, 2004, claimant filed notice and an
  application for a hearing on the issue.  On August 20, 2004, employer
  agreed to permanent total disability benefits, entitling claimant to at
  least 330 weeks of benefits, 21 V.S.A. § 645(a), but would not agree to pay
  those benefits in a lump sum as claimant requested.  Employer's insurance
  carrier has been paying claimant's PTD benefits weekly, at a current rate
  of $365.88. 
          
       ¶  4.  On September 29, 2004, claimant filed a motion with the
  Commissioner, requesting that his benefits be paid in a lump sum, pursuant
  to 21 V.S.A. § 652(b), in an effort to qualify for greater Social Security
  benefits.  Section 652(b) provides that "[u]pon application of the
  employee, if the commissioner finds it to be in the best interest of the
  employee or the employee's dependents, the commissioner may order the
  payment of permanent disability benefits pursuant to section 644 or 648 of
  this title to be paid in a lump sum."  The Commissioner denied the motion,
  rejecting claimant's argument that § 652(b) as amended in 2000 was a
  procedural change, and held that it could not be retroactively applied to
  cases in which the injuries predate its enactment. 

       ¶  5.  Our review in a direct appeal from a decision by the
  Commissioner of Labor and Industry is limited to questions of law certified
  by the Commissioner.  21 V.S.A. § 672.  The Commissioner certified the
  following question:  "Does the Amendment to 21 V.S.A. § 652(b) apply
  retroactively to injuries predating the statute's effective date?"  PC5  We
  will affirm the Commissioner's conclusion if it is "rationally derived from
  the findings and based on a correct interpretation of the law."  Pacher v.
  Fairdale Farms, 166 Vt. 626, 627,