Title: Gintof v. Husky Injection Molding

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Gintof v. Husky Injection Molding (2004-297); 177 Vt. 638; 868 A.2d 713

2005 VT 8

[Filed 19-Jan-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                  2005 VT 8

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-297

                             DECEMBER TERM, 2004

  Gary Gintof	                       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Commissioner of Department of 
                                       }         Labor andIndustry
                                       }	
  Husky Injection Molding	       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. M-21094

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

       ¶  1.  Claimant Gary Gintof appeals a ruling by the Commissioner of
  Labor and Industry, denying him workers' compensation maintenance benefits
  while attending a vocational rehabilitation program.  Claimant argues that
  the statute provides these benefits and the Commissioner abused his
  discretion in denying them.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  Claimant was injured while working as an employee of
  appellee, Husky Injection Molding System (Husky).  Following the injury,
  claimant could not work at his former machinist job, and his vocational
  counselor recommended that he attend a two-year degree program at Vermont
  Technical College (VTC) that would return claimant to 80% of his pre-injury
  weekly wage.  Claimant asserted that he could not attend the program unless
  he received monetary maintenance because he was the sole financial provider
  for his family.  Husky disputed that Vermont law provides this type of
  benefit.

       ¶  3.  The legal issue was submitted to the Commissioner who
  concluded that the Vermont Workers' Compensation Act does not provide a
  stipend or household maintenance award as part of a vocational
  rehabilitation plan for a claimant who has reached medical end result and
  is within commuting distance from home.  The Commissioner noted that,
  although the workers' compensation statute is to be liberally construed, it
  allows commuting and boarding expenses only for those claimants residing
  away from their customary residence.  Therefore, the Commissioner concluded
  that the Legislature intended to compensate only those claimants who have
  to maintain two residences, and denied claimant's request.
   
       ¶  4.  "[W]e will affirm the Commissioner's decision if his
  'conclusions are rationally derived from the findings and based on a
  correct interpretation of the law.' "  Longe v. Boise Cascade Corp., 171
  Vt. 214, 218,