Court Opinion

ID: 9785076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:02:18.39106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:04.675776
License: Public Domain

Dooley, J.,
¶ 15. dissenting. This may look on the surface like a dispute over the application of rules and statutes, but it all starts with a letter from the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to claimant that can be paraphrased roughly as follows:
The Department of Labor ordered us to pay you temporary total disability workers’ compensation benefits for the period January 8, 2007 through May 7, 2007. However, as your employer, we paid you sick leave for that period, and the value of the sick leave exceeds the amount of temporary total disability benefits. Therefore, at our option, we will recredit you the sick leave and not pay you any disability benefits as ordered. We can do this without your approval.
I use this hypothetical letter to demonstrate what is really going on in this case. DPS is violating the Department of Labor’s specific order to pay benefits to claimant; an order that was required by 21 V.S.A. § 662(b) (stating that when denial is made without a reasonable basis “the commissioner shall order that payments be made”).3 None of the rules and statutes cited by the majority changes the reality that DPS’s failure to pay is directly in violation of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act). At best they provide a fig leaf for DPS’s policy argument, accepted by the majority, that its actions are fair and necessary to prevent a double recovery. Even that proposition is arguable, as I discuss below, but in the face of the specific command of § 662(b), these are policy arguments for the Legislature, not this Court.
¶ 16. In general, the Legislature cannot contemplate every possible way a statute will be applied and provide in detail an answer for every occasion. As a result, we are sometimes put in the position where application of a statute appears to lead to a result that we would rather not reach. Despite our views, we must apply the *623statute as the Legislature wrote it and not how we wish they had written it. That responsibility applies as well to the Executive branch. It particularly applies when one agency of state government is required by law to regulate activities of another agency but decides it will not follow a specific statutory mandate in doing so.
¶ 17. We have long held that “the right given to an employee under the provisions of our Workmen’s Compensation Act... is a right created by statute and is not a right existing at common law.” Grenier v. Alta Crest Farms, Inc., 115 Vt. 324, 330, 58 A.2d 884, 888 (1948). The statute “provides a specific and exclusive remedy for the enforcement of that right,” and the “right is limited and can be enforced only by following the procedure given by the statute which created such right.” Id. Thus, because workers’ compensation is governed by statute, equitable considerations cannot be used to override the statutory obligations. Butson v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Training, 2006 VT 10, ¶ 3, 179 Vt. 599, 892 A.2d 255 (mem.). Ignoring these precepts, and based on considerations of fairness and ease, the majority has substituted its own reasoning for the process accorded under the statute. However rational, the majority’s solution is inappropriate because, as we have explained, “in an area of law created entirely through statutory enactment, [this Court should be] hesitant to create rights where the Legislature chose not to do so.”. Gallipo v. City of Rutland, 2005 VT 83, ¶ 49, 178 Vt. 244, 882 A.2d 1177.
¶ 18. The statutory language does not address this issue. According to the majority, “the employer fulfilled its express statutory obligation by first paying full wage compensation in the form of sick leave benefits and, after the Department’s interim ruling that the claim was compensable, by later paying temporary disability benefits as ordered.” Ante, ¶ 9. In so concluding, the majority quotes only part of the relevant statutory section; the full language is as follows: “the employer or the insurance carrier shall pay compensation in the amounts and to the person hereinafter specified.” 21 V.S.A. § 618(a)(1) (emphasis added). Thus, the statute directs not just that payment should be furnished, but that it should be furnished to a particular person. Here, that person was claimant, not DPS. The majority asserts that “employer already paid” claimant in the form of sick leave and so there was no need to abide by this portion of the statute. Ante, ¶ 10. That conclusion depends on the assumption that DPS had authority to substitute sick leave reimbursement for payment of a workers’ compensation award. The statutory language, however, contains no such provision. There was simply no authority under the statute for DPS to use the benefit award to, in effect, pay itself instead of employee.
¶ 19. As DPS notes, other states have enacted statutory provisions to allow an employer to receive credit for wages paid prior to a determination of workers’ compensation benefits. See, e.g., Freel v. Foster Forbes Glass Co., 449 N.E.2d 1148, 1150-51 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (concluding that employer entitled to credit for payments made under wage-continuation plan pursuant to statute allowing such deduction); Knoll v. Chemung Cnty., 845 N.Y.S.2d 477, 478 (App. Div. 2007) (noting that pursuant to statute employer is entitled to reimbursement of advancement of wages made to employee). Vermont’s workers’ compensation law has no similar recoupment provision. Therefore, these cases relying on other states’ statutory provisions are not on point. They cannot create a right that is not afforded under our Act.
¶ 20. With no statutory basis for its action, DPS relies on an internal personnel policy provision. The policy is a six-page memorandum about workers’ compensation, and the relevant section is *624entitled “Absence Greater than Three (3) Work Days.” The particular language relied on by the Department provides:
Days lost during the pay period of injury should be coded on time reports as sick leave. Employees who do not have enough sick leave accrued to cover their lost time may report lost days as annual leave, if they have any accumulated. Any sick or annual leave used for this injury will be reimbursed to the employee if the claim is approved for Workers’ Compensation indemnity, subject to the waiting periods outlined above.
... Once the injury is approved as compensable by the Risk Management Workers’ Compensation Division, beginning with the fourth day of injury the employee’s time off should be reported on the time report as leave with no pay, Workers’ Compensation.
The policy nowhere mentions the issue in this appeal — whether DPS can fail to pay claimant workers’ compensation benefits as ordered by the Department of Labor. At best, the discussion of reimbursing sick leave assumes that an agency can keep the workers’ compensation benefits it has been ordered to pay. It is not a source of law for the right to keep the benefits.
¶ 21. Even if the personnel policy addressed the issue before us, we could not rely upon it on the record we have. “Leave compensation and related matters” and “[r]ules and regulations for personnel administration,” are subjects that must be collectively bargained. 3 V.S.A. § 904(a)(5), (9). There is no evidence that the policy provisions quoted above were agreed to in collective bargaining. Indeed, the policy appears to be a unilateral one adopted by the Vermont Agency of Administration and is not part of the collective bargaining agreement. Our law does provide that “past practices may give rise to an implied contractual provision in the collective-bargaining context.” In re Cole, 2008 VT 58, ¶ 17, 184 Vt. 64, 954 A.2d 1307. To demonstrate such, however, it must be shown that the parties’ conduct has “a continuity, interest, purpose and understanding which elevates a course of action to an implied contractual status.” Id. ¶ 13 (quotation omitted). Because it seeks to rely on the personnel policy, DPS has the burden of demonstrating that the personnel policy provision is a past consistent practice that has reached the level of an implied contractual provision. It has not even tried to meet that standard.
¶22. Thus, the majority decision is supported only by policy arguments. Its main argument for the right to even consider policy arguments is its conclusion that an offset is most consistent with the overall policy inherent in the Act, which discourages double recovery. The majority asserts that the Act “evinces a clear and strong policy against the double recovery of benefits.” Ante, ¶ 7. In support of this policy, the majority cites two statutory provisions and two cases. See 21 V.S.A. §§ 624(e), 643a. The statutes that the majority cites are prime examples of why it is inappropriate for us to rely on policy arguments to decide this case. The statutes show that the Legislature has been concerned about double recovery and acted on that concern where it concluded that action was warranted. It has not concluded that action is warranted in the circumstances before us. We are improperly acting as the Legislature in deciding that some kind of recoupment must be imposed in this circumstance.
¶ 23. The Vermont cases cited by the majority also support the opposite conclusion from that reached by the majority. *625They involve implementation of statutory provisions specifically addressing reimbursement of benefits and support reimbursement only where statutorily authorized. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Henry, 2005 VT 68, ¶ 24, 178 Vt. 287, 882 A.2d 1133 (construing 21 V.S.A. § 624(e), which addresses reimbursement of workers’ compensation carrier for award resulting from third-party -liability); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Surdam, 156 Vt. 585, 589-90, 595 A.2d 264, 266 (1991) (same).
¶ 24. Although I do not believe that the policy arguments can control our decision, I take issue with the majority that the right policy answer is so obvious. First, because DPS is manipulating sick leave, this subject is an appropriate one for collective bargaining. As stated above, the statute obligates the state to bargain “[l]eave compensation and related matters.” 3 V.S.A. § 904(a)(5). DPS’s reliance on a personnel policy shows that this subject should be bargained between the parties and not unilaterally imposed by the state.
¶ 25. Second, DPS is conditioning the receipt of an earned entitlement on foregoing a statutory right to workers’ compensation. Under the current collective bargaining contract, sick leave is earned under a formula that depends upon time in employment, but it is not compensated when an employee leaves state employment. See Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the State of Vermont and the Vermont State Employees’ Ass’n State Police Bargaining Unit for July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2010, Art. 26, § 2(a)(1), (4), at http://www.vsea.org/ state-police-unit-contract. Thus, for the vast majority of state workers, who have not used up sick leave, restoration of sick leave benefits is an empty gesture because a bank of sick leave is not a fungible resource to the employee. The State is claiming to give up something of value that in most cases has no value. It is at least arguable that the sick leave and the workers’ compensation benefits should be viewed as collateral to each other in a circumstance where neither fully compensates the employee for the consequences of the employee’s injury. See Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gullett Gin Co., 340 U.S. 361, 364 (1951) (affirming NLRB decision refusing to deduct state unemployment compensation benefits from back pay awards to diseriminatorily discharged employees because the two benefits were “collateral”).
¶ 26. Finally, this ease is a vivid demonstration of what happens when we try to assume the prerogative of the Legislature in a complicated statutory scheme. Claimant has argued that he is not made whole because he has no way to pay his attorney’s fees and the State gets the benefit of the workers’ compensation award without contributing toward the cost of obtaining it. The majority answers that claimant has a right to seek statutory attorney’s fees under 21 V.S.A. § 678(d).
¶ 27. Again, we are dealing with an illusory right of little or no value. The benefits in issue were obtained through an informal process authorized by 21 V.S.A. § 662(b). The Commissioner of Labor has created an attorney’s fees rule directly on point. It provides that “[i]n most instances awards will only be considered in proceedings involving formal hearing resolution procedures.” Workers’ Compensation and Occupational Disease Rules, Rule 10.0000(a)(3), 3 Code of Vt. Rules 24 010 003-6, available at http:// www.michie.com/vermont. It goes on to state three exceptions to this limitation: where the employer (1) “is responsible for undue delay”; (2) denies the claim “without reasonable basis”; or (3) “engaged in misconduct or neglect.” Id. There is no indication that any of these exceptions apply here so the normal policy of denying fees for informal proceedings controls. To ensure the attorney was paid for his labor, he entered into a contingent fee arrangement under which he was entitled *626to a percentage of any recovery. DPS took the money from which the attorney was to be paid without compensating the attorney for his labor. Of course, the policy on an attorney’s entitlement for fees could be changed by the Legislature, or even possibly by rule of the Department of Labor, in connection with a statutory authorization for the procedure DPS employed in this case. It cannot be done by this Court, and the attorney is left without' compensation by the ruling of this Court. Thus, in the future, no attorney would take a case against the State involving temporary benefits because there is a significant chance the attorney will not be paid for the work that produces the benefits.
¶ 28. We should resist here the temptation to judicially legislate and apply the law as it is. I respectfully dissent.
¶ 29. I am authorized to state that Justice Johnson joins in this dissent.
Motion for reargument denied as untimely filed March 17, 2011.

 In an effort to make legislative silence support its position, the majority faults claimant for offering “no authority in the first instance obligating DPS to pay him more wage replacement in addition to that already paid in sick leave at the employer’s expense.” Ante, ¶ 11. The authority is, of course, the direct order to pay the workers’ compensation benefits and 21 V.S.A. § 662(b), which requires such an order.