Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court held that the 2014 amendment to 21 V.S.A. § 644(a)(6), replacing the phrase “incurable imbecility or insanity” with language concerning severe traumatic brain injury and permanent disabilities, applies retroactively. The court characterized the amendment as remedial and clarified that the claimant did not waive his right to seek total and permanent disability benefits by requesting summary judgment in the employer’s favor. The court reversed and remanded because disputed facts remained concerning the scope of the claimant’s impairment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the 2014 amendment to 21 V.S.A. § 644(a)(6) applies retroactively to West's 2013 injury.
- Whether the Commissioner was entitled to deference on the question of the amendment's retroactive effect.
- Whether West waived his right to seek benefits under § 644(a)(6) by requesting summary judgment in North Branch's favor under the pre-amendment version of the statute.
- Whether summary judgment could be affirmed on the ground that West was not permanently and totally disabled because he was employed or because the medical evidence established no qualifying impairment.
Holdings
- The 2014 amendment applies retroactively because it is a remedial, non-substantive change that modernizes and more respectfully articulates the prior incurable-imbecility-or-insanity standard.
- The Court would not defer to the Commissioner's conclusion that the amendment was nonretroactive.
- West did not waive his right to seek total and permanent disability benefits under § 644(a)(6).
- Summary judgment could not be affirmed on those alternative grounds because present employment was not dispositive under § 644(a), the Court was not defining the ultimate standards under § 644(a)(6), and competing expert opinions created disputed facts concerning the scope of West's impairment.
Key quotations
“We conclude that the 2014 amendment applies retroactively because it is a remedial change and a modern, more respectful articulation of the incurable imbecility or insanity standard.” (¶ 14)
“In sum—guided by the Legislature’s statement of intent in Act 96 and based on how courts have interpreted the terms imbecility and insanity in the workers’ compensation context—we conclude that the 2014 amendment to § 644(a)(6) is a non-substantive, remedial change.” (¶ 49)
“These competing expert opinions present the exact type of factual dispute that is not appropriate for resolution at the summary-judgment stage.” (¶ 58)
Factual background
In March 2013, John West fell fifteen to twenty feet while working for North Branch Fire District and sustained extensive injuries, including serious skull and brain injuries. Medical opinions later conflicted regarding the extent of his permanent impairment, although Dr. Kandel testified that West had suffered a severe traumatic brain injury causing permanent and severe cognitive, physical, or psychiatric disabilities. West relocated to Florida and later worked at the Freedom Boat Club. He sought permanent and total disability benefits under 21 V.S.A. § 644(a)(6), after the Legislature had replaced the statutory phrase "incurable imbecility or insanity" with language concerning severe traumatic brain injury and permanent disabilities.
Procedural history
West was injured while working for North Branch in March 2013 and later sought a formal hearing claiming permanent and total disability. The Commissioner initially denied North Branch's summary-judgment motion but concluded that the pre-amendment version of 21 V.S.A. § 644(a)(6) governed. After an interlocutory appeal was dismissed, West sought summary judgment in North Branch's favor solely to obtain appellate review of the retroactivity ruling, and the Commissioner granted it. The Vermont Supreme Court held that the amendment applies retroactively, rejected North Branch's waiver argument, and reversed and remanded because disputed facts remained concerning West's impairment.
Remand instructions
On remand, the Commissioner must apply the 2014 version of § 644(a)(6), further interpret the provision and determine the appropriate standards for total and permanent disability, and resolve the disputed facts concerning the scope of West's impairment.