 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lowell v. Rutland Area Visiting Nurses5/2/2000
hat claimant, who capably acquired an attorney to represent her in a civil action related to the automobile accident, should have made an attempt or an effort to determine the relationship between her injuries and her employment. However, taking into account the entire context of this case, claimant's credible testimony, as well as the remedial nature of the Workers' Compensation Act, which must be liberally construed to provide injured workers with benefits, defendant's argument is rejected. See St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Surdam, 156 Vt. 585 (1991).
11. Accordingly, based upon an analysis of the specific facts and relevant law in this case, claimant was without a basis to make a claim for workers' compensation until February 1997, when she first learned from her supervisor that the injuries she sustained in the automobile accident were related to her employment. It was at this point when the six- month limitation period commenced. Since claimant filed a claim with the Department almost immediately thereafter, she has clearly satisfied the requirements of 21 V.S.A. § 656 and, therefore, her claim for workers' compensation is not barred.
12. As a final note, the conclusion in this case in not meant to allow claimants to defeat the requirements of section 656 with blanket assertions that they didn't know their injury qualified as a workers' compensation claim. Rather, it requires a specific analysis of the factual circumstances, as well as the credibility of the witnesses, to determine when, in fact, a claimant reasonably should have been aware of the existence of a workers' compensation claim. See W.R. Grace, 152 Vt. at 291-92; Hartman v. Ouellette Plumbing & Heating, 146 Vt. 443, 447 (Dec. 20, 1985).
PREJUDICE
13. Notwithstanding the preceding conclusion as to claimant's compliance with 21 V.S.A. § 656, this claim would still be allowed to proceed, since claimant satisfactorily demonstrated that the delay of notice did not prejudice the defendant.
14. Pursuant to the Vermont Workers' Compensation Act, failure or delay in providing notice or in making a claim shall not preclude a workers' compensation proceeding "if it is shown that the employer, the employer's agent or representative, had knowledge of the accident or that the employer has not been prejudiced by the delay or want of notice." 21 V.S.A. § 660.
15. The claimant has the burden of showing either the employer's knowledge of the accident, or the lack of prejudice. See Workers' Compensation Rule 3(a)(3).
16. As to the lack of prejudice, it is demonstrated (1) by showing that the employer was not hampered in making its factual investigation and preparing its case and (2) by showing that the claimant's injury was not aggravated by reason of the employer's inability to provide early medical diagnosis and treatment. See 7 Larson, Workers' Compensation Law, 78.32(c) at 194.
17. First, the ability to investigate the claim has not been prejudiced. In this case, the defendant does not dispute the underlying circumstances of the automobile accident and the resulting back injury . As such, the issue of whether defendant was prejudiced by an inability to conduct a factual investigation is not relevant to this matter.
18. Additionally, after conducting a thorough review of the medical records and the testimony in this case, it is clear that the defendant also did not suffer any prejudice as a result of the inability to provide earlier medical diagnosis and treatment.
19. First, as revealed by the medical records, there was not a significant delay in receiving medical care following the injury, claimant having sought 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.
|
|