Marshall v. State, 2015 VT 47A
By Andrew Delaney
This opinion, which we reported on just a couple weeks ago, “differs from the original opinion only in ¶ 21 and the mandate.” If you haven’t already read that summary, shame on you.
So what’s this update all about? Well, in the original opinion, the SCOV reasoned that Mr. Marshall wasn’t entitled to further permanent-partial-disability benefits, and therefore didn’t get attorney’s fees because he didn’t “substantially prevail,” which as all o’ y’all know, is required for an attorney’s-fee award in a worker’s-compensation case. In paragraph 21 of this opinion, the SCOV notes that the superior court’s determination that Mr. Marshall is entitled to further medical benefits actually stands, and so the superior court needs to reassess attorney’s fees in light of Mr. Marshall’s partial success.
That’s all, folks.