 |
| What do the lines mean anyway? |
Three things from this week's decision on workers' compensation in Vermont: (1) coverage is broad; (2) it's remedial in nature; and-or-but (3) coverage is not without limits.
As will happen often enough in Vermont, Mr. Burnett worked on both sides of "the river." He was hired in New Hampshire at his employer's New Hampshire facility. One fateful day, he left New Hampshire in a company vehicle with Vermont plates. In Vermont, he did some work at a job site. He went back to New Hampshire to make some gutter blocks for a Vermont job. He injured himself accidentally while making the gutter blocks for the Vermont job.
So, Mr. Burnett filed a claim with employer's Vermont workers' comp carrier. The carrier denied the claim. Mr. Burnett appealed the denial to the Vermont Department of Labor, arguing that the expansive definition of "employment in this state" covered him. Both Mr. Burnett and employer moved for summary judgment—Mr. Burnett arguing any employment by a Vermont entity meets the definition of employment in the state; employer arguing a lack of ties to Vermont (not a Vermont resident; not hired in Vermont; not injured in Vermont). The commissioner granted summary judgment for employer, reasoning that the department lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim. The commissioner found the not-hired-living-nor-injured piece important. The commissioner also declined jurisdiction under a few other potentially applicable statutes because was Mr. Burnett was not hired in Vermont and was not requesting to transfer his New Hampshire claim to Vermont for the purpose of enforcing New Hampshire law.
So, Mr. Burnett appeals. He argues that "employment in this state" is so broad as to include his situation because he did, in fact, have some employment in the state. SCOV acknowledges that the purpose of the workers' compensation statutes is remedial and thus the terms require broad construction in favor of coverage. SCOV also reasons that "employment in this state" is ambiguous. But this is as far as it goes in Mr. Burnett's favor. SCOV concludes that the legislature intended broad coverage to apply to injuries occurring within Vermont and also applying when a worker hired in Vermont is injured out of state, but not when a worker is hired outside of Vermont, lives outside of Vermont, and is injured outside of Vermont. SCOV explains that Mr. Burnett's "advocated interpretation stretches textualism beyond its ideological limit at the expense of the intent of the Legislature." That's some pretty strong phrasing in judicial-opinion land. And it's just so lawyerly that it makes me laugh.
SCOV doesn't take the bait on Mr. Burnett's arguments that the commissioner's interpretation will lead to absurd results, reasoning that it's Mr. Burnett's interpretation that will lead to absurd results. SCOV explains that Mr. Burnett's proposed interpretation would swallow the exceptions contained in other statutes. SCOV explains: "Put more plainly, if the Legislature intended the locus of the employment relationship to control, it would not have included provisions explicitly contemplating circumstances where the employment relationship is based in Vermont, but the injury takes place somewhere else." SCOV dodges a hypothetical involving remote work by referencing the age-old prohibition on advisory opinions.
Anyway, that's the deal. The department of labor doesn't have jurisdiction over Mr. Burnett's claim due to—for lack of a better phrase—Mr. Burnett's limited ties to Vermont. SCOV affirms. Burnett v. Home Improvement Company of Vermont, 2024 VT 41.
Comments
Post a Comment