Case Title: Lorrain v. Lorrain Carpets

Citation: 167 Vt. 574, 705 A.2d 536

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-09-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
Lorrain v. Lorrain Carpets  (95-610); 167 Vt. 574; 705 A.2d 536 

[Filed 30-Sep-1997]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-610

                              APRIL TERM, 1997

Derek Lorrain                         }     APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }
     v.                               }     Chittenden Superior Court
                                      }
Lorrain Carpets, Atlantic Mutual      }
Insurance Company, Peerless           }     DOCKET NO.  S1127-95CnC , B-17679,
Insurance Company and Aetna Life      }                 Z-448, X-19106 & 84-
and Casualty Company                  }                 16207

               In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Claimant Derek Lorrain was denied workers' compensation for a back
  condition that resulted in a diskectomy and spinal fusion surgery in 1991. 
  Claimant alleged that the back condition resulted from a 1985 accident that
  occurred while he was working for Derek Lorrain Carpet Installers, Inc., a
  business he owned and operated.  The Commissioner of Labor and Industry
  concluded that claimant was collaterally estopped from claiming causation
  between the 1985 accident and the 1991 condition because of the jury
  verdict in a tort suit he brought against the owners of the home where the
  carpet was installed and where the 1985 accident occurred. Claimant first
  appealed to the Chittenden Superior Court which dismissed his claim for
  lack of jurisdiction.  Claimant then appealed to this Court.  We conclude
  that we can reach the merits of this appeal and affirm the decision of the
  commissioner.(FN1)

       The workers' compensation carrier at the time of the accident was
  Aetna Life and Casualty Company.  In response to the claim, Aetna moved for
  summary judgment based on the jury verdict in the tort suit.  In August
  1995, the commissioner granted summary judgment to Aetna based on defensive
  collateral estoppel.  Claimant appealed the commissioner's decision to
  Chittenden Superior Court pursuant to 21 V.S.A. § 670.  On November 7,
  1995, the superior court granted Aetna's motion to dismiss on the ground
  that the appeal raised a pure question of law for which the superior court
  lacked subject matter jurisdiction.  On November 28, 1995, claimant
  appealed to this Court from both the August decision of the Commissioner
  and the November decision of the superior court.  Aetna argues that the
  appeal from the commissioner is untimely and that the jurisdictional
  decision of the superior court should be affirmed.

       We agree with Aetna that the applicability of collateral estoppel to a
  given set of facts is a question of law.  See, e.g., Emich Motors Corp. v.
  General Motors Corp.,