Source: https://www.seglawyersvermont.com/curtis-smiley-v-state-of-vermont-june-3-2013-2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:46:46+00:00

Document:
2. If yes, is Defendant barred from asserting the defense?
to improve over time, and therefore advised him to return for treatment only as needed.
October 21, 2010. On that date, Claimant’s attorney entered his appearance.
permanent partial disability benefits referable to his 1996 work injury.
medical evaluation with Dr. Backus, which Claimant attended on January 20, 2011.
reached an end medical result, but did not specify a date when this likely occurred.
that his claim was time-barred.
defense of statute of limitations.
has considered in Longe v. Boise Cascade Corp., 171 Vt. 214 (2000), and Sanz v.
219, citing Hartman v. Ouellette Plumbing & Heating Corp., 146 Vt. 443, 447 (1985).
now three years. 21 V.S.A. §660(a).
169 Vt. 539, 540-41 (1999) (applying reasonable discovery rule in dram shop action).
and pursue available remedies. Id.
can only begin to run when there is in fact something to claim,” Hartman, supra at 446.
Opinion No. 04-11WC (February 16, 2011).
retrospective declaration of end medical result accepted as determinative).
average layman” that they are only reasonably discoverable with an expert’s assistance.
disability benefits is now time-barred.
statute or rule, or by operation of the doctrines of equitable estoppel or equitable tolling.
to notify the worker of his or her right to permanency benefits. Id. at 223.
at such time as the employee reaches a medical end result.
time the new statute becomes effective. Id.
compensation claims. Citing to 1 V.S.A. §214, in Montgomery v. Brinver Corp., 142 Vt.
date for determining whether a substantive amendment to the statute will apply.
procedural, and can be applied in a pending action.2 Id.
accrued, properly governed his case.
Public Service Corp., Opinion No. 03-11WC (January 25, 2011).
specifically rejected this argument in Sanz, supra at ¶11, and so I do as well.
therefore are appropriately characterized as procedural rather than substantive in nature.
claims involving injuries that occurred after their effective date. That is not the case here.
undisputed facts do not support applying either doctrine.
evidence whatsoever that this is what occurred.
Claimant’s claim for permanency benefits.
barred by the applicable statute of limitations and is therefore DENIED.
DATED at Montpelier, Vermont this 3rd day of June 2013.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 §660
 §214
 v.