Smiley v. State

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court held that the State did not waive its statute-of-limitations defense by arranging a permanent impairment evaluation for the claimant. The court concluded that Workers’ Compensation Rule 18(a) applied because it was procedural, but that violation of the rule did not toll the six-year statute of limitations. The court therefore affirmed summary judgment barring the claimant’s permanent partial disability claim.

Holdings

1. The State did not waive its statute-of-limitations defense merely by agreeing, at Smiley's request, to arrange a permanent impairment evaluation.
2. Rule 18(a) applied to Smiley's claim because it was procedural rather than substantive and did not alter the parties' preexisting substantive rights.
3. Violation of Rule 18(a) did not toll the applicable six-year statute of limitations, and the claim was barred.
4. Even apart from the statute of limitations, laches independently barred the claim because Smiley delayed unreasonably and the delay prejudiced the State.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State waived its statute-of-limitations defense by agreeing to arrange a permanent impairment evaluation.
2. Whether the claim for permanent partial disability benefits was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
3. Whether Workers' Compensation Rule 18(a) applied to the claim and, if so, whether violation of the rule tolled the statute of limitations.

Disposition

affirmed