Laumann v. Department of Public Safety, 2004 VT 60 (VT 6/25/2004)

• Decision Date: 25 June 2004
• Docket Number: No. 2003-105,2003-105
• Citation: 2004 VT 60
• Parties: Kenneth Laumann v. Department of Public Safety Robert Wheeler v. Ethan Allen, Inc.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Page 1

2004 VT 60

Kenneth Laumann v. Department of Public Safety

Robert Wheeler v. Ethan Allen, Inc.

No. 2003-105

Supreme Court of Vermont

June 25, 2004

On Appeal from Commissioner of Department of Labor and Industry, R. Tasha Wallis, Commissioner.

Thomas A. Zonay of Ford & Zonay, P.C., Woodstock, for Plaintiff-Appellant Laumann.

Bernard D. Lambek, Robert Halpert and Patricia K. Turley of Zalinger, Cameron & Lambek, P.C., Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellant Wheeler.

Keith J. Kasper of McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & Burchard, P.C., Burlington, for Defendant-Appellee Department of Public Safety.

William J. Blake and Wesley M. Lawrence, Law Clerk, of Kiel Ellis & Boxer, Springfield, for Defendant-Appellee Ethan Allen, Inc.

PRESENT: Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Reiber, JJ.

SKOGLUND, J.

¶ 1. Appellants Kenneth Laumann and Robert Wheeler (Claimants) appeal a decision of the Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry (Department) granting summary judgment in favor of Claimants' employers, Vermont Department of Public Safety and Ethan Allen. Claimants contend that the Commissioner violated statutory requirements of the Workers' Compensation Act when she ruled that the date claimants returned to work was the operative date from which to calculate cost of living increases for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits. Because the Commissioner's interpretation is consistent with the plain language of the relevant statutes and regulations, we affirm.

¶ 2. The facts of this case are not in dispute. Kenneth Laumann injured his back while working as a Vermont State Trooper. He reported for duty the following day and thus lost no time from work as a result of his injury. He reached medical end result after more than three and a half years from the date of the incident.¹ Laumann still suffered a permanent impairment, however, and was therefore entitled to PPD benefits. Upon reaching medical end result, Laumann and the Vermont Department of Public Safety entered into an agreement awarding him PPD benefits for a period of 52.25 weeks based on a 9.5% impairment rating.

¶ 3. Robert Wheeler injured his hand operating a wood chipper while working for Ethan Allen. Eight months passed before Wheeler was able to return to work. He reached medical end result for his injury about a year and two months after the date of the accident, but still suffered a permanent impairment. At that point, he entered into an agreement with Ethan Allen awarding him PPD benefits for a period of 52.65 weeks based on a 13% impairment rating.

¶ 4. In these two agreements, the date Claimants returned to work was used as the operative date for calculating cost of living increases for PPD benefits. Under this so-called "old methodology," once a claimant reaches medical end result and receives an impairment rating, PPD benefits are determined by taking two-thirds of the claimant's average weekly wage at the time of the injury, then making weekly payments until the total number of weeks are satisfied. If those payments extend beyond July 1, an annual cost of living adjustment was made.

¶ 5. After the parties signed the agreement, but before Claimants were paid, the Department developed a new way to calculate annual cost of living increases for PPD benefits. Under this "new methodology," once a claimant reaches medical end result and receives an impairment rating, the compensation rate for PPD benefits is determined after adding annual adjustments to the average weekly wage from the date of injury to the date of medical end result. The change in methodology would have had the greatest impact on Laumann because, with three and a half years between the date of injury and medical end result, he would have received $ 5000.00 more in PPD benefits. The impact would have been far less on Wheeler because only a year and two months passed between the date of injury and medical end result.

¶ 6. Citing the change to the "new methodology," the Department declined to approve the parties' PPD benefit agreements because they employed the "old methodology." The employers then sought a hearing before the Department and requested consolidation of their cases.² On January 5, 2003, the Commissioner issued a decision granting the employers' summary judgment motion. The Commissioner based her ruling on the fact that the "old methodology" represented the most consistent reading of the statutory language and applicable regulations. Claimants appealed.

¶ 7. This Court's review is limited to questions of law that the Commissioner has certified, see 21 V.S.A. § 672, and is tempered by the considerable deference we must accord her ruling. "The Commissioner's decision is presumed valid, to be overturned only if there is a clear showing to the contrary." Wood v. Fletcher Allen Health Care, 169 Vt. 419, 422, 739 A.2d 1201, 1204 (1999). "Absent compelling indication of an error, interpretation of a statute by an administrative body responsible for its execution will be sustained on appeal," unless it is unjust or unreasonable. Bedini v. Frost, 165 Vt. 167, 169, 678 A.2d 893, 894 (1996).

To make this determination we "look to the whole statute, its effects and consequences, and the reason and spirit of the law to determine whether the Commissioner's interpretation conflicts with the Legislature's intent." Clodgo v. Rentavision, Inc., 166 Vt. 548, 550, 701 A.2d 1044, 1045 (1997).

¶ 8. The Commissioner certified the following question for our consideration: what is the proper method of calculating cost of living increases on permanency benefits for claimants who have lost no time from work, or who returned to work before reaching medical end result for their work-related accidents? In answering this question, the Commissioner held that, "[b]ecause the `old methodology' is consistent with the Act and the Rules, it must control the calculation of permanency benefits." She based her decision on the fact that "neither the Act nor the Rules refer to a medical end result date in the context of calculation of compensation benefits" and, as such, she would not read that language into the statute.

The Commissioner also noted that the Legislature "could have chosen the medical end result date, but [] did not." Instead, it chose the date of termination of temporary disability, i.e., the date the employee returns to work, as the point at which PPD benefits are payable.

¶ 9. Claimants argue that the Commissioner's interpretation of the statutes is unjust, unreasonable, and inconsistent because PPD benefits cannot be paid out until an injured party reaches medical end result and an impairment rating can be determined. Claimants insist that any annual cost of living adjustments should be calculated from the date of medical end result going forward, thus giving them the benefit of any increases from the date of injury to medical end result. The employers counter that the Legislature intended to initiate weekly PPD benefit payments upon the termination of temporary total disability benefits, and not the medical end result date. To read it any other way, the employers argue, would result in a windfall to the Claimants in this case — who lost no time from work or who returned to work before medical end result — because between the time they returned to work and medical end result, they were working and receiving their wages along with any annual adjustments from their employers to which they were entitled.

¶ 10. To resolve this dispute, we must review the Commissioner's interpretation of the Workers' Compensation Act. "Our goal in interpreting statutes is to effect the intent of the Legislature, which we attempt to discern first by looking to the language of the statute." Russell v. Armitage, 166 Vt. 392, 403, 697 A.2d 630, 637 (1997). When the meaning of a statute is plain on its face, we need not resort to construction and must enforce it according to its stated terms. See id.

¶ 11. Payment of PPD benefits is governed by 21 V.S.A. § 648 which states:

Where the injury results in a partial impairment which is permanent and which does not result in permanent total disability, compensation shall be paid during the period of total disability, as provided in sections 642 and 643 of this title, and at the termination of total disability, the employer shall pay to the injured employee 66 2/3 percent of the average weekly wage, computed as provided in section 650 of this title, . . . for a period determined by multiplying the...