Title: Morin v. Essex Optical/The Hartford

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Morin v. Essex Optical (2003-502); 178 Vt. 29; 868 A.2d 729

2005 VT 15

[Filed 28-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 15

                                No. 2003-502

  Theresa Morin	                                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.       	                         Commissioner of 
                                                 Labor and Industry

  Essex Optical/The Hartford	                 November Term, 2004

  Michael S. Bertrand, Commissioner

  Christopher McVeigh, Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

  John W. Valente 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.  Claimant Theresa Morin appeals a decision of the
  Commissioner of Labor and Industry, holding that she is not entitled to
  receive a cost of living adjustment to her workers' compensation permanent
  total disability benefits.  The Commissioner found that cost of living
  increases to permanent total disability benefits under 21 V.S.A. § 650(d)
  were not available if the resulting benefit amount would be greater than
  claimant's average weekly wage at the time of her injury, and, on this
  basis, denied claimant's cost of living increase.  We reverse.
   
       ¶  2.  Claimant was injured in 1990 when she fell and injured her
  lower back while employed by defendant, Essex Optical.  The low back injury
  led to additional health problems including psychological depression and a
  stomach ulcer caused by the medications that claimant used to relieve her
  back pain.  Claimant sought permanent total disability benefits, and in
  November 2001, the Commissioner awarded them.  The employer appealed to the
  superior court, which affirmed in March 2003. 

       ¶  3.  At the time of injury, claimant's average weekly wage was $475,
  and her resulting weekly workers' compensation benefit was $317.  During
  the period between her injury and the Commissioner's compensation decision,
  she received a cost of living adjustment to her temporary benefits every
  July 1 as mandated by 21 V.S.A. § 650(d).  As a result, she was receiving
  weekly compensation of $469 from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002.  In
  July 2002, the annual cost of living adjustment would have increased  her
  benefit to $489, an amount in excess of her $475 average weekly wage at the
  time of her injury.  Defendant's insurance carrier refused to increase
  claimant's benefit.  Claimant submitted the question to the Commissioner in
  a motion for summary judgment, arguing that she was entitled to continued
  yearly increases under 21 V.S.A. § 650(d) irrespective of whether her
  benefit amount exceeded her average weekly wage at the time of her injury. 
  The Commissioner denied the motion, and claimant appealed.  On appeal, the
  Commissioner submitted the following certified question: "Did the
  Department of Labor and Industry err in its interpretation of 21 V.S.A. §
  650(d) in concluding that a permanent total disability claimant's weekly
  compensation rate could not exceed her average weekly wage?"  We answer
  this question in the affirmative.
   
       ¶  4.  This appeal involves a question of law, and "[i]f the
  Commissioner's conclusions are supported by the findings and reflect the
  correct interpretation of the law, we will affirm the Commissioner's
  decision."  Butler v. Huttig Bldg. Prods., 2003 VT 48, ¶ 9, 175 Vt. 323,