Case Title: Payea v. Howard Bank

Citation: 164 Vt 106, 663 A.2d 937

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-07-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
PAYEA_V_THE_HOWARD_BANK.94-414; 164 Vt 106; 663 A.2d 937

[Opinion Filed 14-Jul-1995]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 11-Aug-1995]

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. 94-414


Wendy Payea                                       Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            Chittenden Superior Court

The Howard Bank & Banknorth Group                 February Term, 1995


Matthew I. Katz, J.

William M. Dorsch and Beth A. Danon of Mickenberg, Dunn, Sirotkin & Dorsch,
Burlington, for plaintiff-appellant 

Christopher D. Roy, Heather Briggs and Patricia M. Sabalis of Downs Rachlin &
Martin, Burlington, for defendants-appellees 


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


          DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiff appeals the Chittenden Superior Court's
grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment.  Following a work-related
injury, plaintiff sought damages and other relief after defendants refused to
reinstate her in accordance with  643b(b) of Vermont's workers'
compensation statute ("Act").  21 V.S.A.  643b(b). On appeal, plaintiff
claims that the trial court improperly concluded that an exception to the
reinstatement obligation, as provided in  643b(d)(2) of the Act, applied in
plaintiff's circumstances.  We agree, and therefore, reverse. 

     In 1986, plaintiff was hired as a data processor for defendant Howard
Bank, which later merged with defendant Banknorth Group (BNG). BNG initially
assumed responsibility over data processing, but beginning in September of
1990 it contracted its data processing functions to Systematics, Inc. 
Plaintiff's work injury occurred in October 1990, and temporarily disabled
her from continuing to work. While she was recuperating, her position was
eliminated because it came within the scope of Systematic's contract.  In
March of 1991, plaintiff informed 

 

defendants that she was available to return to work, but defendants refused
to place her in a job.     

     Plaintiff argues that defendants have a duty to reinstate her, pursuant
to  643b(b) of the Act.  The section provides: 

     The employer of a worker disabled by an injury compensable
     under this chapter shall reinstate the worker when his or her
     inability to work ceases provided recovery occurs within two years
     of the onset of the disability.  A worker who recovers within two
     years of the onset of the disability shall be reinstated in the first
     available position suitable for the worker given the position the
     worker held at the time of the injury.

There is no dispute that plaintiff fell within this section.  The sole issue
on appeal is whether plaintiff's rights are barred by an exception to this
provision, which states the reinstatement right does not apply if "employment
would have terminated of its own terms prior to any reinstatement the worker
would otherwise be entitled to."  21 V.S.A.  643b(d)(2). 

     The trial court concluded that the exception to the reinstatement right
applied because plaintiff was an at-will employee and her position was
eliminated in a general downsizing of BNG.  Plaintiff argues that these
elements are insufficient to trigger the statutory exception. 

     When construing a statute, we presume that language is inserted
advisedly.  Trombley v. Bellows Falls Union H.S., 160 Vt. 101, 104,