Case Title: Close v. Superior Excavating Co.

Citation: 166 Vt. 318, 693 A.2d 729

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-03-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
Close v. Superior Excavating Co.  (96-072); 166 Vt. 318; 693 A.2d 729

[Filed 28-Mar-1997]

       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. 96-072

James Close                                       Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
     v.                                           Commissioner, Department of
                                                  Labor & Industry

Superior Excavating Co.                           January Term, 1997

Mary S. Hooper, Commissioner

       Leighton C. Detora of Valsangiacomo, Detora & McQuesten, P.C., Barre,
  for plaintiffs-appellants

       John A. Serafino of Ryan Smith & Carbine, Ltd., Rutland, for
  defendant-appellee/ cross-appellant

PRESENT:  Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ., Allen, C.J. (Ret.)

       JOHNSON, J.   Employer Superior Excavating appeals a decision of the
  Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Labor and Industry requiring
  payment of workers' compensation benefits for nursing services provided by
  claimant's spouse.  Claimant cross-appeals the measure of benefits awarded
  by the Commissioner.  We affirm.

       In October 1988 claimant suffered a severe head injury during an
  accident at work. Following a lengthy hospital stay, he returned home to
  live with his spouse and children at the end of March 1989.  As a result of
  his injury, claimant was subject to intermittent seizures, severe
  disorientation, and short-term and long-term memory loss.  Claimant
  required supervision twenty-four hours a day.  He was not able to take
  medication on his own, could not prepare his meals, and could not dress
  himself without assistance.  He had behavioral problems, including
  uncontrollable crying and bursts of anger.  He was also subject to
  seizures, including several grand mal seizures in the first year or two
  after his injury.  Claimant often wandered and would

 

  leave the house if not watched closely; at least once the police were
  called to help locate him. This wandering occurred at all hours of the day
  and night.

       Despite the concern of his physicians about his spouse's ability to
  provide full-time care, claimant remained at home under her care for the
  next five years.  Claimant's spouse was assigned a number of tasks by her
  husband's physicians.  She administered and monitored his medications and
  was authorized to alter the doses in certain circumstances.  For a period
  of months she kept a log of her husband's behavior for his physicians.  She
  was also charged with monitoring her husband's seizure activity and
  responding appropriately.  In February 1993, claimant's spouse agreed to
  accept some assistance in caring for her husband.  From June 1993 until
  March 1995, claimant was in an adult day-care program three days a week and
  received eight hours a month of home-care assistance.  In December 1994,
  employer's insurer began searching for a permanent residential placement
  for claimant and in March 1995 he was admitted to an assisted-living
  facility where he has since resided.

       Claimant filed a claim seeking compensation for nursing services
  provided by his spouse for the period between his discharge from the
  hospital in March 1989 and his admission to a permanent care facility in
  March 1995.  Following a hearing, the Commissioner ordered the employer to
  pay claimant the sum of $207,312.40 for nursing services, as well as costs
  and attorney's fees.  This appeal followed.

       On appeal employer argues that the care provided by claimant's spouse
  was not nursing services within the meaning of 21 V.S.A. § 640.  Employer
  also argues that even if the services are compensable under § 640, claimant
  should not be paid for services provided prior to February 1993, because
  claimant failed to request services prior to that date.  On cross-appeal,
  claimant argues the Commissioner should have ordered compensation at the
  rate of $18.00 per hour, rather than using an average of the prevailing
  minimum wage during the years in question, $4.10 per hour.

 

                                     I.

       We first address employer's claim that the Commissioner erred in
  finding that the services provided by claimant's spouse were nursing
  services compensable under 21 V.S.A. § 640.  We presume that decisions made
  within an administrative agency's area of expertise are correct, valid, and
  reasonable, absent a clear showing to the contrary.  In re New England Tel.
  & Tel. Co., 159 Vt. 459, 462, 621 A.2d 232, 235 (1993).  When, as here, the
  question on appeal is one of statutory construction, this Court defers to
  an agency's interpretation of statutes it is empowered to enforce.  See
  Burlington Elec. Dep't v. Vermont Dep't of Taxes, 154 Vt. 332, 337, 576 A.2d 450, 452 (1990).

       The Commissioner found that claimant's spouse provided nursing
  services through the administration and monitoring of medications and
  through monitoring and assistance during seizures.  The Commissioner also
  found that this care was needed on an on call basis, requiring
  twenty-four-hour attendance.  The eventual placement of the claimant at a
  full-time residential facility, paid for by the employer, confirmed this
  finding.

       The relevant statute requires an employer to "furnish reasonable
  surgical, medical and nursing services."  21 V.S.A § 640(a).  None of these
  terms is defined, nor does the statute address the issue of spousal care. 
  Vermont case law is similarly silent on the subject of compensation to a
  spouse or other household or family member who provides these services.

       A number of other states, however, have recognized spousal care as
  compensable when the services provided go beyond ordinary household duties. 
  See Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. v. Downey,