Title: Farris v. Bryant Grinder Corp.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Farris v. Bryant Grinder Corp. (2003-516); 177 Vt. 456; 869 A.2d 131

2005 VT 5

[Filed 14-Jan-2005]

       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.

                                  2005 VT 5

                                No. 2003-516

  Charles Farris	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Windsor Superior Court

  Bryant Grinder Corporation/Wausau 	         October Term, 2004
  Insurance Company

           v.

  Bryant Grinder Corporation/AIG 
  Insurance Company

  Mary Miles Teachout, J.

  Joshua L. Simonds of Mertz, Talbott & Simonds, PLC, Burlington, for
    Defendant-Appellant.

  John W. Valente and John A. Serafino of Ryan Smith & Carbine, Ltd.,
    Rutland, for  Defendant-Appellee.
   

  PRESENT:  Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Reiber, JJ., and 
            Allen, C.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.   This appeal involves a dispute between two
  insurance companies as to which one should pay workers' compensation
  benefits for an injury to Bryant Grinder Corporation (Bryant Grinder)
  employee Charles Farris.  Appellant, Wausau Insurance Company (Wausau),
  appeals a superior court jury determination that Farris suffered a
  recurrence of a previous injury and therefore that it was liable instead of
  AIG Insurance Company (AIG), successor to Wausau and insurer at the time of
  Farris's later injury.  On appeal, Wausau argues that the superior court
  erred by failing to: (1) allocate a burden of proof to one of the parties;
  (2) reformulate the certified question into five separate interrogatories;
  and (3) provide a specific jury instruction on the last injurious exposure
  rule.  We find that although failure to allocate a burden of proof was
  error, it was harmless, and the jury instructions were otherwise within the
  court's discretion.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  Charles Farris began working for Bryant Grinder in July 1973, a
  year after he first had surgery on his right knee in May 1972.  He again
  injured his right knee in April 1991 when he slipped on some oil at work. 
  Farris received medical treatment for this injury, including surgery, and
  was out of work for fifteen months.  He received workers' compensation
  benefits from Wausau, which insured Bryant Grinder from May 1989 to May
  1992.  Farris returned to work, and the condition of the knee deteriorated
  to the point where he again had surgery in 1993.  Although after nine
  months Farris returned to work for Bryant Grinder, the condition of his
  knee continued to worsen until he had another operation in December 1996. 
  He did not return to work after this operation.
   
       ¶  3.  Bryant Grinder had three different insurance carriers during
  the period between the end of the Wausau coverage in 1992 and Farris's 1996
  surgery.  Only the last carrier, AIG, is involved in this action.  It began
  to insure Bryant Grinder in May 1995.  Despite the new carriers, Wausau
  continued to pay Farris workers' compensation benefits through the 1996
  surgery and thereafter.  In January 1998, it received an opinion from an
  orthopedic doctor that Farris's "degenerative arthritis of the right knee
  is aggravated and probably accelerated by his type of work which places
  excess stress across the knee through the work day."  Based on that
  opinion, Wausau filed a "Notice of Intention to Discontinue Payments"
  pursuant to 21 V.S.A. § 643a, on the ground that Farris's current condition
  "should be current carrier's responsibility."  This led to a proceeding
  before the Commissioner of Labor and Industry to determine whether Wausau
  or AIG was responsible for payments to Farris. (FN1) 

       ¶  4.  Generally, when two employers or insurers dispute liability for
  a workers' compensation claim arising out of successive injuries, the
  liability remains with the first insurer or employer if the second injury
  is a recurrence of the first.  Pacher v. Fairdale Farms, 166 Vt. 626, 627,