State News : Vermont

Mahmutovic v. Washington County Mental Health Services, Inc., 2023 VT 37, 218 Vt. 184, 307 A.3d 868:

Claimant suffered a compensable work injury to his left knee. Claimant voluntarily left the employment of the Defendant and began work for a new employer. While employed at the new employer, Claimant lost time attending a medical appointment for the accepted work injury. The Vermont Supreme Court found that 21 V.S.A. § 640(c), which states that an “employer shall not withhold any wages from an employee for the employee’s absence from work for treatment of a work injury or to attend a medical examination related to a work injury,” shifts the burden of covering lost wages to the employee’s current employer. Therefore, the new employer was required to reimburse Claimant for his lost wages related to his work injury. Claimant also challenged the constitutionality of 21 V.S.A. § 640(c) based on his “protected property interest in recovering lost wages.” The Court ultimately found for the Defendant, ruling that Claimant did not have third-party stand to challenge the constitutionality of the statue as the damage was to that of the new employer.

Defendant represented by David Grebe and McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard, P.C.

Hill v. Agri-Mark, Inc., 2025 VT 3

Claimant had an accepted work injury but did not initially miss any time from work. After the injury, Claimant left his job with Defendant and began working for two new employers concurrently. Claimant then voluntarily resigned from one of these positions approximately one week prior undergoing surgery, which in turn triggered a period of disability. The Department of Labor found that pursuant to 21 V.S.A. § 650(a)(4) and Rule 8.1500, only wages from employment that Claimant was employed “at the time of injury or disability” were considered for the average weekly wage calculation. Claimant appealed this decision to the Vermont Supreme Court, arguing that all wages within the 26 week look-back period should be counted as “concurrent” employment, and that Rule 8.1500 narrowed 21 V.S.A. § 650(a)(4) and was not a valid exercise of the Department of Labor’s rulemaking authority. The Supreme Court affirmed the Department’s decision that Rule 8.1500 was not a narrowing of the statute and was a valid exercise of rulemaking authority. For employment to count as concurrent an injured worker must be employed at the time of injury or disability.

Defendant represented by David Grebe and McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard, P.C.

Estate of St. Germain v. Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union, No. 01-25WC (January 26, 2025)

Claimant was employed as the principal of high school within the Defendant’s district. Following a series of allegations of sexual harassment against Claimant, he was advised by the superintendent that his employment was in jeopardy. Approximately one year after the allegations Claimant committed suicide. Claimant’s Estate contended that the allegations, threat of losing his job, combined with pre-existing anxiety and depression was the cause of death. The Defendant filed for summary judgment based on 21 V.S.A. § 649, which states that “an employee’s willful intention to injure himself” bars recovery under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Department denied summary judgment to the Defendant, noting an important distinction that 21 V.S.A. § 649 does not bar a workers’ compensation claim if the employment causes a mental injury, which is turn is alleged to be the cause of death.