Title: Butson v. Department of Employment &Â Training

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Butson v. Dept. of Employment & Training (2004-456); 179 Vt. 599; 892 A.2d 255

2006 VT 10

[Filed 12-Jan-2006]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 10

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-456

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005


  In re Appeal of Kenneth Butson	}	APPEALED FROM:
                                        }
                                        }	Employment Security Board
                                        }	
  	                                }
                                        }	DOCKET NO. 05-04-167-13


             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Claimant Kenneth Butson appeals a decision by the Employment
  Security Board, holding that he must repay to the Department of Employment
  and Training (DET) unemployment compensation benefits received for the time
  period that overlaps with the period for which he later received workers'
  compensation benefits and that he is not entitled to reduce his repayment
  to DET by a share of the attorneys' fees incurred to obtain the workers'
  compensation benefits.  The Board found that nothing in the relevant
  statutes allowed Mr. Butson to reduce the repayment obligation created by
  21 V.S.A. § 1347(b).  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  Claimant received unemployment compensation benefits for the
  weeks ending April 20, 2002 through January 4, 2003, totaling $8,440.00. 
  He later filed a workers' compensation claim for a job-related injury he
  received in February of 2002.  He eventually received workers' compensation
  benefits covering the period from April 20, 2002 through January 4, 2003
  and greater in amount than the unemployment compensation benefits
  previously received.  Under 21 V.S.A. § 1347(b), he was required to repay
  DET for the unemployment compensation payments he received for the time
  period for which he also received workers' compensation benefits.  He
  argued that he should, however, be able to reduce the repayment by a
  proportionate share of the attorneys' fees he incurred in collecting the
  workers' compensation benefits.  He argued that the reduced repayment was
  authorized by equitable considerations and the common fund doctrine.  Both
  DET and the Board rejected this argument.  He then appealed to this Court. 
   
       ¶  3.  The question before us is first one of statutory
  construction.  See Daniels v. Vermont Ctr. for Crime Victims Servs, 173 Vt.
  521, 523