Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Antonio Sanz’s request to receive permanent total disability workers’ compensation benefits in a lump sum. The court held that the 2000 amendment to 21 V.S.A. § 652(b) could not be applied retroactively to an injury occurring in 1998 because it would affect preexisting rights and obligations under 1 V.S.A. § 214(b)(2).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the 2000 amendment to 21 V.S.A. § 652(b), authorizing the Commissioner to order lump-sum payment of permanent disability benefits without the employer's consent, applied retroactively to Sanz's 1998 injury.
- Whether the amendment could be applied retroactively because it was procedural or remedial under 1 V.S.A. §§ 213 and 214.
Holdings
- The amendment cannot be applied retroactively because lump-sum payment fundamentally changes the claimant's right to compensation and the employer's obligation to pay, and 1 V.S.A. § 214(b)(2) prohibits an amendment from affecting rights, privileges, obligations, or liabilities acquired, accrued, or incurred before the amendment's effective date.
- The procedural and remedial character of the amendment does not permit retroactive application because amendments are governed by 1 V.S.A. § 214, and the amendment affects preexisting rights and obligations.
Key quotations
“Given this express prohibition of retroactive effect, 21 V.S.A. § 652(b) can only be applied here if allowing the Commissioner to order lump sum payments will not affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired prior to the statute’s effective date in 2000.” (180 Vt. at 621)
“We agree that application of the amendment would fundamentally alter employer’s obligation by allowing the Commissioner to order it to discharge its obligation all at once where it previously would have been able to discharge that obligation gradually over a six-year period.” (180 Vt. at 622-23)
“Accordingly, we hold that 1 V.S.A. § 214(b)(2) prohibits retroactive application of 21 V.S.A. § 652(b) to injuries that predate its enactment.” (180 Vt. at 623)
Factual background
Antonio Sanz was seriously injured at work on January 30, 1998, when he struck his head on a ceiling rafter and fell fifteen feet from a ladder, resulting in incomplete quadriplegia and permanent total disability. In 2003, an independent medical examiner placed him at medical end result, and in 2004 the employer agreed that he was entitled to permanent total disability benefits of at least 330 weeks. The employer's insurer paid the benefits weekly, but the employer did not agree to Sanz's request for a lump-sum payment intended in part to help him qualify for greater Social Security benefits.
Procedural history
Sanz was awarded or became entitled to permanent total disability benefits after a work injury, but his employer would not agree to a lump-sum payment. Sanz moved before the Commissioner under 21 V.S.A. § 652(b) for lump-sum payment, arguing that the 2000 amendment applied to his 1998 injury. The Commissioner denied the motion and certified the retroactivity question to the Vermont Supreme Court, which affirmed.