 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lowell v. Rutland Area Visiting Nurses5/2/2000
>
5. The Lillicrap v. Martin, 156 Vt. 165 (July 14, 1989) decision, being closely analogous to the instant case, provides the guidance necessary for evaluating the pertinent statutory language. In Lillicrap, the Vermont Supreme Court interpreted the language of a statute of limitations, which provides, in part, that an action to recover damages in a medical malpractice case should be brought within two years "from the date the injury is or reasonably should have been discovered." See 12 V.S.A. § 521. The court held that this provision includes not only discovery of the injury itself, but also discovery of the cause of the injury, as well as the existence of a cause of action. Id. at 176.
6. In reaching its ultimate conclusion, the court reasoned that "a point arises at which a reasonable person should be able to ascertain that her legal rights have been violated. At that point the statute of limitations should commence." Lillicrap, 156 Vt. at 174 (citing Ware v. Gifford Memorial Hospital, 664 F. Supp. 169, 171 (D. Vt. 1987)). " he law ought not to be construed to destroy a right of action before a person even becomes aware of the existence of that right." Id. (quoting Foil v. Ballinger, 601 P.2d 144, 147 (Utah 1979). "Put more succinctly, courts ought not to declare the bread stale before it is baked." Id. at 174-75 (quoting Fleishman v. Eli Lilly & Co., 96 A.D.2d 825, 826 (1983) (Gibbons, J., concurring and dissenting)). Therefore, the court concluded that the applicable statute of limitations does not commence to run until a plaintiff has discovered her "legal injury ." Id. at 176.
7. Similarly, in The University of Vermont v. W.R. Grace & Co., 152 Vt. 287 (Aug. 4, 1989), the Vermont Supreme Court further provided that a statute of limitations should not be utilized as an unjust and inflexible tool. Id. at 291. To allow a cause of action to accrue before a party "has or can reasonably be expected to have knowledge of any wrong inflicted is patently inconsistent and unrealistic. One cannot maintain an action before one knows there is one." (quoting South Burlington School District v. Goodrich, 135 Vt.601, 609 (Billings, J. dissenting)).
8. Taking into consideration the Lillicrap and W.R. Grace rulings, it is evident, that for purposes of determining the accrual date for commencing the six-month limitations period of 21 V.S.A. § 656, notice of a work injury and a claim for workers' compensation must be made within six months after a claimant discovers or reasonably should discover her injury, its cause, and the existence of a workers' compensation claim.
9. In this case, claimant did not provide notice with her supervisor until late January or early February 1997, or file a workers' compensation claim until February 1997, approximately two years after the automobile accident, which occurred in February 1995. However, claimant credibly and reliably explained that she was simply unaware that injuries sustained in an automobile accident that occurred en route between clients' homes qualified as a workers' compensation claim. She did not discover the existence of her workers' compensation claim prior to the discussion with her supervisor. Once she did learn this fact, claimant acted immediately and filed a claim with this Department, well within the six-month confines of 21 V.S.A. § 656.
10. Furthermore, since claimant's injury occurred while travelling in an automobile to provide care to her clients, rather than on her actual employment premises, it is entirely reasonable that claimant was unaware, until informed by her supervisor, that her resulting injuries were covered by workers' compensation. Defendant disputes this contention, maintaining t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Vermont Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|