Case Title: Butler v. Huttig Building Products

Citation: 175 Vt. 323, 2003 VT 48, 830 A.2d 44

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-05-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
Butler v. Huttig Building Products (2002-113); 175 Vt. 323; 830 A.2d 44

2003 VT 48

[Filed 23-May-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 48
  	
                                No. 2002-113

  Jean Butler	                                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Commissioner of Labor and 
                                                 Industry

  Huttig Building Products	
                                                 January Term, 2003

  R. Tasha Wallis, Commissioner

  Richard H. Munzing of Weber, Perra & Munzing, P.C., Brattleboro, for
    Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Keith J. Kasper of McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard, P.C,
    Burlington, for Defendant-Appellee.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Allen, C.J.
            (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.  ALLEN, C. J.  (Ret.), Specially Assigned.   Claimant suffered
  serious injuries in a workplace accident, and appeals from an order of the
  Department of Labor and Industry terminating his workers' compensation
  benefits due to fraud.  We reverse and remand the Commissioner's decision
  on claimant's right to permanent disability benefits, but affirm the
  remainder of her order. 
   
       ¶  2.  The undisputed facts are as follows.  On February 24, 1997,
  while working for defendant Huttig Building Products as a tractor-trailer
  driver, claimant was seriously injured after 1,000 pound glass doors fell
  on his head at a loading dock.  His injuries included fractures and
  dislocations in his spine, trauma to his left knee, ruptured disks in his
  back, and a central spinal cord contusion.  Upon being struck, claimant
  immediately lost consciousness and suffered paralysis of his arms and legs. 
  Claimant underwent three surgeries to address his spinal injuries, and was
  discharged from the hospital at the end of March 1997.  At that time,
  claimant was still unable to walk and required help from others to engage
  in daily living activities.  After his release, claimant received treatment
  for pain, depression, headaches, and other problems.  He also received
  extensive physical and occupational therapy and home nursing services. 
  Claimant obtained workers' compensation benefits for his injuries,
  including temporary disability, medical, and vocational rehabilitation
  benefits.

       ¶  3.  On September 13, 2000, defendant filed a so-called Form 27 with
  the Workers' Compensation Division of the Department of Labor and Industry
  notifying claimant that it was discontinuing temporary disability payments
  and medical benefits effective September 22, 2000.  Defendant cited
  claimant's fraudulent activity as the reason for terminating payments, and
  filed supporting evidence to substantiate its allegations of fraud.  On
  October 26, 2000, the Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry
  approved the Form 27.  The following day, claimant filed a notice and
  application for a hearing to contest the termination of his benefits.  In
  his application for hearing, claimant sought restoration of his temporary
  total disability compensation, in addition to medical and vocational
  rehabilitation benefits and attorneys' fees.  
   
       ¶  4.  Initially, the Director of the Workers' Compensation Division
  denied claimant's request for a hearing, explaining that the Department was
  investigating defendant's allegations of fraud separately under 21 V.S.A. §
  708 to determine whether to issue an administrative penalty for claimant's
  conduct.  The Director asserted that claimant was not entitled to a hearing
  on the termination of his benefits, but that claimant would be offered an
  opportunity for a hearing on the administrative penalty if one issued. 
  After corresponding with claimant's counsel, the Director reversed herself. 
  A hearing on defendant's termination of workers' compensation benefits was
  held in May and June, 2001.

       ¶  5.  Prior to the hearing, claimant and defendant stipulated to some
  facts concerning claimant's fraud.  Specifically, claimant admitted that he
  falsified (1) two medical notes from one of his doctors, Dr. Katz, (2)
  three receipts for the Fitness Barn, the place claimant performed physical
  therapy exercises, seeking reimbursements for overpayments claimant
  allegedly made, and (3) mileage reimbursement requests on eight separate
  dates for medical treatments claimant never received.  The mileage and
  Fitness Barn reimbursements claimant falsified totaled $1,463.96.  One of
  the falsified notes from Dr. Katz increased the dosage for certain
  medications claimant was taking, including an increase in the pain killer
  OxyContin.  

       ¶  6.  Claimant's fraud went beyond the facts to which he stipulated,
  however.  The Commissioner found that claimant sought mileage reimbursement
  for four trips to see Dr. Katz that claimant never made.  Claimant also
  lied to his health care providers and exaggerated his symptoms in their
  presence.  Claimant tried to deceive his physicians as well as the workers'
  compensation hearing officer by presenting himself as having a claw-like
  deformity in his hands known as "main en griff posture."  He alleged that
  his hands were cold, stiff, and required gloves because of the deformity,
  and he wore gloves to the hearing.  A videotape made without claimant's
  knowledge contradicted those claims.  The tape showed claimant holding a
  gun in snowy weather without gloves and without any sign of a claw-like
  deformity, or any difficulty in performing fine motor movement.  
   
       ¶  7.  Ultimately, the Commissioner upheld defendant's Form 27
  termination and denied claimant further benefits.  The Commissioner
  concluded that claimant's deceptive practices were ongoing, and that "what
  he tells to health care providers cannot be trusted."  Although the
  Commissioner denied claimant's request to reinstate his benefits, she found
  that claimant's work-related injuries were undisputed and left him with a
  significant permanent impairment.  The extent of the permanent disability
  had not been determined at that time, however.  

       ¶  8.  Following the Commissioner's denial of claimant's motion to
  reconsider, claimant appealed to this Court.  The Commissioner certified
  three questions (FN1) for our determination in accordance with 21 V.S.A. §
  672, which we have reworked into a single question for clarity: Which, if
  any, compensation benefits should claimant forfeit because of his fraud? 
  As we explain, the answer to that question is all benefits, except
  claimant's right to permanent disability benefits.
                       
       ¶  9.  We first note that claimant does not contest the
  Commissioner's factual findings.  In that case, we confine our review to
  the Commissioner's legal conclusions.  Longe v. Boise Cascade Corp., 171
  Vt. 214, 218,