Roethke v. Jake's Original Bar and Grill, No. 00-080.

Docket NºNo. 00-080.
Citation772 A.2d 492
Case DateMarch 01, 2001
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Vermont

772 A.2d 492

LuAnn ROETHKE
v.
JAKE'S ORIGINAL BAR AND GRILL

No. 00-080.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

March 1, 2001.

Motion for Reargument Denied March 27, 2001.


Before AMESTOY, C.J., and DOOLEY, MORSE, JOHNSON, SKOGLUND, JJ.

ENTRY ORDER

This is an appeal from a final order by the Commissioner of Labor and Industry, who certified as a question for review by this Court whether a claimant's workers' compensation rate pursuant to 21 V.S.A. §§ 642 and 648 (temporary total and permanent partial disability) may exceed the claimant's actual average weekly wage at the time of injury. The department answered the question in the negative, and claimant argues the question should be answered in the affirmative. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to address the certified question, the appeal is dismissed.

In 1989, claimant LuAnn Roethke suffered a back injury while working at Jake's Original Bar and Grill. The injury resulted in her eventually undergoing a series of surgical procedures, ultimately resulting in the fusion of two vertebrae in her back. Within a few months of the injury, claimant filed for workers' compensation, and has been receiving either temporary total or permanent partial disability benefits since 1990.

Claimant instituted this action, seeking reimbursement for her unpaid medical bills and recalculation of her average weekly wage from $155 to $300, with a corresponding increase in her computation rate. On June 2, 1999, the department issued a ruling on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, holding that claimant would not be entitled to annual adjustments of her workers' compensation benefits. On January 19, 2000, the department issued an order, after a hearing on the merits, on the issue of her actual earnings during the twelve weeks prior to her injury and the insurance carrier's responsibility for certain disputed expenses. Claimant then expressed to the department her intention to appeal the January 19 decision to the superior court. On February 10, the commissioner, upon an unopposed motion by claimant, entered a final judgment on the June 2, 1999, summary judgment ruling, agreeing with claimant that the summary judgment claim should be granted prior to superior court adjudication of the factual issues. On February

772 A.2d 493
16 claimant filed her appeal of the February 10 judgment, on a question of law, to this Court. Two days later, on February 18, claimant filed a separate appeal of the same judgment, on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • EST. OF GEORGE v. LEAGUE OF CITIES & TOWNS, No. 08-374.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • January 15, 2010
    ...of fact and law certified to it by the commissioner. 21 V.S.A. § 671; Roethke v. Jake's Original Bar & Grill, 172 Vt. 555, 556, 772 A.2d 492, 493 (2001) (mem.). The question certified in this case was one of fact—did claimant's employment cause his NHL? In the proceedings before the tri......
  • Peachey v. Peachey, 2020-291
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • October 8, 2021
    ...below. We take judicial notice of the docket entries in that case. See Roethke v. Jake's Original Bar & Grill, 172 Vt. 555, 556 n.*, 772 A.2d 492, 493 n.* (2001) (mem.) (taking judicial notice of docket entries in related case). [2] The court indicated that it was open to revising the p......
  • Stoll v. Burlington Elec. Dept., No. 08-051.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • June 19, 2009
    ...A.N. Deringer/Wausau Insurance Co., 2008 VT 106, 208 Vt. 106, 966 A.2d 133, and Roethke v. Jake's Original Bar & Grill, 172 Vt. 555, 772 A.2d 492 (2001) 977 A.2d 1286 (mem.), are unpersuasive. In Letourneau, the jurisdictional issue was neither raised by the parties nor considered by th......
  • Zebic v. Rhino Foods, Inc., No. 2020-209
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • May 21, 2021
    ..."a final statement of the disputed issue(s)"). Alternatively, citing Roethke v. Jake's Original Bar & Grill, 172 Vt. 555, 772 A.2d 492 (2001) (mem.), Rhino Foods argues that we do not have jurisdiction because §§ 670 and 672 create mutually exclusive avenues for appeal. Assumi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • EST. OF GEORGE v. LEAGUE OF CITIES & TOWNS, No. 08-374.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • January 15, 2010
    ...of fact and law certified to it by the commissioner. 21 V.S.A. § 671; Roethke v. Jake's Original Bar & Grill, 172 Vt. 555, 556, 772 A.2d 492, 493 (2001) (mem.). The question certified in this case was one of fact—did claimant's employment cause his NHL? In the proceedings before the tri......
  • Peachey v. Peachey, 2020-291
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • October 8, 2021
    ...below. We take judicial notice of the docket entries in that case. See Roethke v. Jake's Original Bar & Grill, 172 Vt. 555, 556 n.*, 772 A.2d 492, 493 n.* (2001) (mem.) (taking judicial notice of docket entries in related case). [2] The court indicated that it was open to revising the p......
  • Stoll v. Burlington Elec. Dept., No. 08-051.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • June 19, 2009
    ...A.N. Deringer/Wausau Insurance Co., 2008 VT 106, 208 Vt. 106, 966 A.2d 133, and Roethke v. Jake's Original Bar & Grill, 172 Vt. 555, 772 A.2d 492 (2001) 977 A.2d 1286 (mem.), are unpersuasive. In Letourneau, the jurisdictional issue was neither raised by the parties nor considered by th......
  • Zebic v. Rhino Foods, Inc., No. 2020-209
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • May 21, 2021
    ..."a final statement of the disputed issue(s)"). Alternatively, citing Roethke v. Jake's Original Bar & Grill, 172 Vt. 555, 772 A.2d 492 (2001) (mem.), Rhino Foods argues that we do not have jurisdiction because §§ 670 and 672 create mutually exclusive avenues for appeal. Assumi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT