Title: Cehic v. Mack Molding, Inc.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Cehic v. Mack Molding, Inc. (2004-353); 179 Vt. 602; 895 A.2d 167

2006 VT 12

[Filed 13-Jan-2006]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 12

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-353

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005

  Ramiz Cehic	                     }		APPEALED FROM:
                                       }	
                                       }        Department of Labor and Industry	
  v.                                   }
                                       }	
  Mack Molding, Inc.	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. M-25723
  	
             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Mack Molding, Inc. appeals from the Commissioner of Labor and
  Industry's decision that it is responsible for paying workers' compensation
  benefits for its former employee, claimant Ramiz Cehic.  The Commissioner,
  after a contested hearing, concluded that a 1998 injury claimant incurred
  while employed at Mack Molding, rather than a more recent 2001 lifting
  incident at a subsequent employer, Pike Industries, was responsible for
  claimant's continued impairment and need for back surgery in 2002.  On
  appeal, Mack Molding argues that the Commissioner erred in considering the
  later lifting incident as a temporary flare-up of a preexisting condition,
  instead of analyzing the incident as an "aggravation" of a preexisting
  injury, for which the latest employer would be responsible, or a
  "recurrence" of an old injury, for which Mack Molding would remain liable. 
  Alternatively, Mack Molding argues that this Court should abandon the
  current aggravation-or-recurrence analysis and, instead, adopt a
  bright-line rule that the employer at the time of the last injurious
  exposure is always liable.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  Claimant was employed by Mack Molding in 1998 when he injured
  his back in a lifting incident, suffering a herniated disc in his spine, an
  injured facet joint, and strained lower lumbar muscles.  In 1999, as a
  result of the injury, claimant had surgery on his spine, which removed part
  of the facet joint and large amounts of disc material.  After the surgery,
  claimant continued to experience pain, worked part-time for a while, and
  was gradually released by his doctor to work full-time, but with lifting
  restrictions.  In May 2000, while his workers' compensation claim against
  Mack Molding was still under adjustment, claimant began work at Pike
  Industries, a New Hampshire employer.  In November 2000, Mack Molding sent
  claimant to an orthopedic surgeon, who determined that claimant had reached
  a medical end result for the 1998 injury, with persistent back and leg pain
  and a permanent disability amounting to a ten-percent impairment of the
  whole person. 
   
       ¶  3.  Eight months later, on July 31, 2001, after lifting a pipe at
  Pike Industries, claimant experienced back pain and leg numbness and sought
  medical treatment.  Claimant missed some time from work, engaged in
  physical therapy, and returned to full-time work by September or October of
  2001.  Claimant was laid off from Pike Industries on January 4, 2002. 
  Shortly thereafter, claimant underwent a surgical fusion of his lower
  lumbar vertebrae.  Claimant first filed a workers' compensation claim with
  the New Hampshire Department of Labor, which determined that Pike
  Industries was not responsible.  

       ¶  4.  Claimant next filed for workers' compensation in Vermont
  against Mack Molding.  Mack Molding denied coverage, contending that it was
  not answerable for the pipe-lifting episode at Pike, since it was not a
  recurrence of the Mack Molding injury, but an aggravation of that injury
  while in Pike's employ.  At the time of the hearing in 2004, claimant had
  not resumed employment.  After a contested hearing, the Commissioner
  concluded that the back pain and numbness incurred in July 2001 at Pike was
  a "flare-up" for which Mack Molding was not responsible.  The Commissioner
  determined the flare-up prompted claimant to seek medical treatment, but
  did not alter claimant's underlying condition remaining from his earlier
  accident at Mack Molding.  The Commissioner further determined, however,
  that once claimant's condition returned to his pre-Pike- injury "baseline"
  in late September or October 2001, Mack Molding continued to be liable for
  benefits due on account of claimant's underlying condition.  See Pacher v.
  Fairdale Farms, 166 Vt. 626, 629,