Court Opinion

ID: 9522770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:32:11.601089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:53.875853
License: Public Domain

Reiber, C.J.,
¶ 21. dissenting. This case is an example of the adage: “Exceptional cases must not be permitted to beget bad law.” Downer v. Battles, 103 Vt. 201, 204, 152 A. 805, 806 (1931). Although I am sympathetic to claimant’s position, I cannot agree with the majority’s decision, which discards the language of the statute to avoid exclusion of claimant’s injury. The plain statutory language of 21 V.S.A. § 649 directs that an employee may not recover workers’ compensation benefits when his injury was caused “by or during his or her intoxication.” The majority’s interpretation focuses on the caused “by” language, but largely ignores the caused “during” language. I believe we must give effect to the full statutory language to properly implement the Legislature’s intent. Thus, I dissent from the majority’s construction of § 649. I would affirm the Commissioner’s decision that because claimant’s injury was caused during his intoxication, claimant is barred from recovering compensation.
¶ 22. At the outset, it is important to acknowledge two underlying considerations, which, although they permeate the case, are not directly addressed by the majority. The first is that the facts of this case are unusual and extreme. The injury claimant suffered can be described as nothing other than horrific. No one can read these facts without feeling sympathy for claimant. Moreover, the circumstances in which he suffered this injury are atypical in that although claimant consumed alcohol prior to the injury, he did so at home and his alcohol use was not a cause of the injury which also happened at home.
¶ 23. The second underlying issue is that Vermont’s intoxication exemption is unique. As noted, Vermont’s workers’ compensation statute disallows compensation for “an injury caused ... by or during [an employee’s] intoxication.” 21 V.S.A. § 649. In contrast, although most states’ workers’ compensation statutes exempt or reduce coverage based on a defense of intoxication, these provisions all require some causal relationship between an employee’s *405intoxication and the injury.4 The closest analog to our statute is the Texas statute, which states that an injury is not compensable if it “occurred while the employee was in a state of intoxication.” Tex. Labor Code Ann. § 406.032(1)(A). Thus, in Texas, it is sufficient for the employer to defeat the claim by demonstrating that the employee was intoxicated at the time he sustained the injury, and there is no additional requirement that the intoxication caused the injury. See Tex. Indem. Ins. Co. v. Dill, 42 S.W.2d 1059, 1060 (Tex. Civ. App. 1931) (construing earlier version of statute and holding that once employer proved that employee sustained injuries while intoxicated, employer was not required to demonstrate that the intoxication proximately caused the injury).
¶24. These two underlying considerations combine to create a difficult situation. Claimant has suffered a horrible injury, and we must determine whether the facts of his injury meet the standards set out in the workers’ compensation statute without the benefit of precedent or case law construing analogous provisions from other states. Plainly, our statute does not require a causal connection between an employee’s intoxication and his injury. Under our statute therefore some claimants may be denied coverage for an injury that, absent the claimants’ unrelated intoxication, would have resulted in coverage. This is one such case. While this result may appear unfair,5 it is not our task to measure the relative fairness of the result, but to determine if it *406is the result the Legislature intended when it enacted the statute. “If the provisions of a statute are unfair or unjust, the remedy is by a change of the law itself, to be effected by the legislature, and not by judicial action in the guise of interpretation.” State v. Racine, 133 Vt. 111, 114, 329 A.2d 651, 653 (1974) (quotation omitted). In my view, the plain language of the statute directs that coverage will be denied where the injury was caused during an employee’s intoxication. Because employer in this case demonstrated that claimant was intoxicated when he caused his injury by drinking the caustic substance, I would affirm the Commissioner’s denial of coverage.
¶ 25. My decision rests on the language of the statute, which states that “[cjompensation shall not be allowed for an injury caused ... by or during [an employee’s] intoxication.” 21 V.S.A. § 649. Our interpretation of a statute is foremost guided by the language the Legislature employed. “We presume that the Legislature intended the plain, ordinary meaning of the language, and if the meaning of that language is plain on its face, we normally ascertain legislative intent solely from the statutory language.” In re Handy, 171 Vt. 336, 341, 764 A.2d 1226, 1233 (2000). “[Although application according to the plain language is preferred when possible, the letter of a statute or its literal sense must yield where it conflicts with legislative purpose.” Lubinsky v. Fair Haven Zoning Bd., 148 Vt. 47, 49, 527 A.2d 227, 228 (1986). “[W]e operate on the presumption that no unjust or unreasonable result was intended by the legislature.” Id. at 50, 527 A.2d at 228.
¶ 26. In the arena of workers’ compensation, we must interpret the provisions of the statute with two important overall policy considerations in mind. First, the statute’s directive that “[a]ll process and procedure under the provisions of this chapter shall be as summary and simple as reasonably may be.” 21 V.S.A. § 602. Second, we must be mindful that “our workers’ compensation statute is ‘remedial in nature and must be liberally construed to provide injured employees with benefits unless the law is clear to the contrary.’ ” Murray v. Luzenac Corp., 2003 VT 37, ¶ 4, 175 Vt. 529, 830 A.2d 1 (mem.) (quoting St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Surdam, 156 Vt. 585, 590, 595 A.2d 264, 266 (1991)). Even given our policy of liberal construction, we have not hesitated in the *407past to limit application of the workers’ compensation statute where such limitation was directed by the statute’s plain language. See Wolfe v. Yudichak, 153 Vt. 235, 239, 571 A.2d 592, 594-95 (1989) (holding that under the “literal and plain meaning of the language of the statute” workers’ compensation did not apply to volunteer firefighter who was injured when responding to a call). We have also observed that “neither we, nor the Commissioner, has the ability to expand benefits beyond those provided by the Legislature.” Gintof v. Husky Injection Molding, 2005 VT 8, ¶ 8, 177 Vt. 638, 868 A.2d 713 (mem.).
¶ 27. The Commissioner has interpreted the during language of § 649 to mean that “the fact of a Claimant’s intoxication at the time of injury is an absolute bar to recovery, even if there is no causal relationship between the two.” Thus, in this case, the Commissioner determined that claimant could receive no benefits because he was intoxicated at the time the injury took place — when he drank from the bottle.6
¶ 28. The majority rejects the Commissioner’s interpretation as at odds with the statute’s overall remedial purpose and instead holds that intoxication must proximately cause the injury for there to be no coverage. The majority concludes that claimant’s injury arose out of his workplace act of taking the bottle home, and therefore a proximate cause of claimant’s injury was also when defendant brought the bottle home. Because claimant was not intoxicated at the time he brought the bottle home, the majority reasons, § 649 does not bar coverage.
¶ 29. I have two problems with this interpretation. First, it conflates the concepts of whether an injury arose out of a claimant’s employment, 21 V.S.A. § 618(a)(1), and whether intoxication proximately caused an injury, id. § 649; and, second, it gives the same meaning to the caused by and caused during language in the statute. On the first point, I agree that under our positional-risk doctrine claimant’s injury arose out of his employ*408ment because taking the bottle home put him in a position to be injured. Clodgo v. Rentavision, Inc., 166 Vt. 548, 551, 701 A.2d 1044, 1046 (1997) (“An injury arises out of employment if it would not have occurred but for the fact that the conditions and obligations of the employment placed claimant in the position where he or she was injured.”). I also accept that caused by intoxication in § 649 refers to proximate cause. I disagree, however, that these two determinations are the same. When we adopted the positional-risk analysis to determine if an injury arose out of a claimant’s employment, we emphasized that it differed from a traditional proximate cause analysis. Shaw v. Dutton Berry Farm, 160 Vt. 594, 596-99, 632 A.2d 18, 19-20 (1993). We rejected the use of proximate cause as being “too narrow” for determining which injuries arise out of a claimant’s employment. Id. at 597, 632 A.2d at 19. Thus, the question of what act proximately caused claimant’s injury is different than the question of whether claimant’s injury arose out of his employment.
¶ 30. In this case, although claimant’s injury was initially caused by his act of bringing the bottle home and thus arose out of his employment, claimant’s injury was also caused by his act of drinking from the bottle. Our cases involving proximate cause recognize that there can be “more than one act of negligence, each a proximate cause, [that] may combine to produce an injury.” Tufts v. Wyand, 148 Vt. 528, 530, 536 A.2d 541, 542 (1987). I believe we must consider both of these events in our analysis of § 649 since they both contributed to the injury.
¶ 31. On the second point, the majority’s construction of the statute essentially reads “during” out of the statute. I believe the Legislature inserted the word “during” for a reason, and I cannot agree with the majority’s interpretation which makes this language meaningless. See Racine, 133 Vt. at 114, 329 A.2d at 654 (“[W]e must presume that all language is inserted in a statute advisedly.”); see also State v. Phillips, 142 Vt. 283, 286 n.1, 455 A.2d 325, 327 n.1 (1982) (rejecting interpretation that would read two statutory clauses as “synonymous” because it would render one clause “mere surplusage”).
¶ 32. The majority’s sole attempt to define “during” is its statement that this language means “an employer must affirmatively show that intoxication played a role in causing the injury, either actively — ‘caused by’ — or passively — ‘caused during.’ ” Ante, ¶ 18. I fail to understand how the concept of passive *409causation applies in this context. The term usually is used in situations involving multiple tortfeasors and “refers to situations where the conduct of one tortfeasor was considered to be the primary, or ‘active’ cause of damage to the plaintiff, and the conduct of the other tortfeasor was considered to be a secondary, or ‘passive’ cause of damage.” Sabena Belgian World Airlines v. United Airlines, Inc., 773 F. Supp. 1117, 1122 (N.D. Ill. 1991). I have found this distinction applied in the workers’ compensation arena in only one context — where intoxication was an aggravating factor, but not the sole cause of the injury. For example, in Wills v. Penn Dell Salvage, Inc., 274 A.2d 144 (Del. Super. Ct. 1971), a mechanic’s jaw was broken when he attempted to remove scrap wire under a car and the car moved a short distance. Because of the worker’s intoxicated condition, he was unable to “rid himself of the blood dripping into his throat,” and he died. Id. at 145. The facts indicated that the initial injury was not caused by intoxication, but that if the employee was sober he would not have died. In awarding benefits, the court concluded that “benefits are not to be denied merely because the injury flowing from a nonintoxication caused accident are increased by the employee’s intoxicated state. . . . [T]he employee’s intoxication must be an active proximate cause of the injury, not a passive condition which aggravates an injury otherwise caused.” Id.
¶ 33. If the question before us was whether the Legislature intended to bar recovery for injuries caused solely by intoxication, rather than those in which intoxication was merely a contributing cause, this distinction may have some relevance. That is not, however, the question presented to us in this case. The statute excepts from coverage injuries caused during intoxication, and I believe we must implement this plain language. Under the undisputed facts of this case, claimant cannot recover compensation for his injuries. The facts demonstrate that claimant was intoxicated during the time he drank from the bottle and caused his injury.7
*410¶ 34. In sum, it is up to the Legislature to enact a statute that properly balances the relevant policy considerations. The Legislature has a legitimate interest in preventing intoxication, and in providing rules that are easy to implement, and we must apply the clear meaning of statutes that articulate the Legislature’s judgment to the cases that come before us. While generally I do believe that the provisions of the workers’ compensation statute are remedial and must be read broadly to provide for compensation, we cannot rewrite sections of the statute to conform to what we deem to be the most important policy concerns. See Wolfe, 153 Vt. at 239, 571 A.2d at 594-95. Therefore, I dissent.
¶ 35. I am authorized to state that Justice Burgess joins this dissent.

 Other states’ statutes vary in the description and degree of causation that an employer must demonstrate; such phrasing includes proximate cause, sole cause, major cause, and substantial cause. 1 A. Larson & L. Larson, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 36.03[1], at 36-19 to 36-21 (2009).

 Indeed, Professor Larson strongly criticizes statutes that require no causal link between intoxication and injury, observing that:
[Tjhis type of statute is as foreign to compensation principle as anything could be. It can only be described as a sort of special penal prohibition measure applicable exclusively to employees. Other people may be punished for drunkenness by small fines or a night in jail, but if it can be proved that a worker was intoxicated when blinded by an explosion on the premises, although the worker would have been blinded just the same if sober, the penalty is the loss of compensation rights, not to mention common-law rights, running into many thousands of dollars. Such statutes, whether phrased in their present form by inadvertence or intent, are preposterous, and should be speedily amended before they work some such staggering injustice.
Larson, supra, § 36.03[2], at 36-22.1-36-23. Despite this strong criticism, however, *406the suggested remedy for the situation is through legislative amendment, not judicial action.

 The Commissioner has adopted 23 V.S.A. § 1204(a)(2) as the standard for intoxication, and therefore presumes that a worker with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more is intoxicated. See Brailsford v. Time Capsules & Wausau Ins. Co., Op. No. 12-00WC (Vt. Dep’t of Labor May 17, 2000), available at http://www. labor.vermont.gov/Default.aspx?tabid=957. I do not address the question of whether this is a permissible presumption because claimant stipulated that his alcohol concentration was above 0.08 and did not challenge the Commissioner’s adoption of this standard.

 I note that the Commissioner’s interpretation is not exactly consistent with the statutory language. The Commissioner excludes compensation for an injury that occurs during intoxication, whereas the statutory language excludes coverage for injuries that are caused during intoxication. Thus, the Commissioner’s interpretation focuses on whether an employee was intoxicated at the time of injury, but the statute directs that the focus should be on whether an employee was intoxicated during the cause of the injury. This distinction is not critical in most cases because most of the time an injury is caused and occurs at the same time. In some cases, *410however, while the cause of the injury occurs at one moment in time, the injury itself may not manifest immediately. Although claimant urges that this is such a ease, the facts indicate otherwise. As explained, there were multiple causes of claimant’s injury, one of which was his act of drinking the caustic chemical. Because claimant was intoxicated during this event, he cannot receive benefits for his injury.