Title: Wentworth v. Fletcher Allen Health Care

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Wentworth v. Fletcher Allen Health Care (99-196); 171 Vt. 614; 765 A.2d 456

[Filed 19-Jul-2000]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 28-Nov-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-196

                               MAY TERM, 2000

Joan Wentworth	                       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Chittenden Superior Court
                                       }	
                                       }
Fletcher Allen Health Care	       }	DOCKET NO. S1637-96 CnC

                                                Trial Judge: Matthew I. Katz

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

       Plaintiff-employee Joan Wentworth appeals the Chittenden Superior
  Court's orders granting  defendant Fletcher Allen Health Care summary
  judgment on plaintiff's claims arising from her  occupational injury and
  eventual termination from employment with defendant's predecessor, Fanny 
  Allen Hospital.  Plaintiff claims that the court erred in (1) granting
  defendant summary judgment  where there were material facts in dispute; (2)
  improperly placing on her the burden of proof to  establish a "suitable
  position" under 21 V.S.A. § 643b; (3) failing to place the burden of proof
  on  defendant in a "mixed-motives" wrongful termination claim; (4)
  improperly finding that Medical  Center Hospital of Vermont (MCHV) was not
  plaintiff's employer; and (5) failing to find that  defendant's motion for
  summary judgment was untimely.  Plaintiff also claims that the court 
  unreasonably denied plaintiff's motion for sanctions after defendant
  refused to appear for a  deposition.  We find no merit in plaintiff's
  claims of error and affirm.  

       Plaintiff was employed as a licensed practical nurse (LPN) at Fanny
  Allen Hospital for twenty  years.  On October 8, 1992, she injured her back
  while moving a patient.  Plaintiff received workers'  compensation
  benefits, underwent surgery and treatment, and returned to work on August
  18, 1993,  with a lifting restriction of fifty pounds maximum once per hour
  and forty pounds frequently.  On  November 5, 1993, plaintiff again injured
  her back moving a patient.  She returned to work on  December 15, 1993,
  with weight restrictions of fifteen pounds lower lifting and twenty pounds 
  overhead.  There was no nursing job at Fanny Allen that plaintiff could do
  with a weight restriction  of fifteen pounds.  Fanny Allen terminated
  plaintiff's employment, effective December 21, 1993,  because she was not
  able to perform LPN duties.

       Plaintiff inquired about other open employment positions at Fanny
  Allen, specifically a unit  secretary.  Defendant maintains that the unit
  secretary position required typing skills of 30 word per  minute. 
  Plaintiff disputes this contention, though she concedes that she did not
  possess such typing 

 

  skills.  Plaintiff was not hired for the unit secretary position nor any
  other position at Fanny Allen,  nor at the MCHV, which acquired the assets
  of Fanny Allen on January 1, 1995, and became Fletcher  Allen Health Care,
  Inc.

       In November 1996, plaintiff brought an action against Fletcher Allen
  alleging four counts: (1)  unlawful retaliation for filing a worker's
  compensation claim in violation of 21 V.S.A. § 710; (2)  breach of
  contract; (3) emotional distress; and (4) punitive damages.  Defendant
  moved for summary  judgment on all counts in June 1998, to which both
  parties responded with motions.  On January 14,  1999, the trial court
  granted defendant's motion on the first three claims.  However, despite the
  fact  that plaintiff did not expressly plead it, the court identified a
  failure to reinstate claim under 21  V.S.A. § 643b(b) in plaintiff's
  action, and declined to grant defendant summary judgment on this or  the
  punitive damages claim related to it.  

       Defendant moved to reconsider and renewed its summary judgment motion
  on the failure to  reinstate claim in January 1999.  Plaintiff opposed
  defendant's renewed motion and filed her own  motion to reconsider. 
  Defendant filed a reply memorandum in support of its renewed motion and in 
  opposition to plaintiff's motion to reconsider.  Plaintiff responded to
  this with two separate motions.   On February 18, 1999, the court heard
  arguments by both parties on defendant's renewed motion and  plaintiff's
  motion for sanctions against defendant for failure to produce a witness for
  deposition.  The  court granted defendant summary judgment on the
  reinstatement claim, as well as the related  punitive damages claim. 
  Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider and for summary judgment, which  was
  denied.  Plaintiff appeals to this Court. (FN1)

       We review a grant of summary judgment using the same standard as the
  superior court.  Madden v. Omega Optical, Inc., 165 Vt. 306, 309,