 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Carter v. Fred's Plumbing & Heating Inc.11/4/2002
." 21 V.S.A. § 660(b) (Cum.Sup. 2002). Plaintiff claims that § 660(b) ought to apply retroactively to his claim. Remedial statutes are entitled to liberal construction. Pillsbury v. United Eng'g Co., 342 U.S. 197, 200 (1952); Re Dexter, 93 Vt. 304, 312, 107 A. 134, 137 (1919). "A remedial statute is one designed to cure a mischief or remedy a defect in existing laws." Id. at 312, 107 A. at 137 (citations omitted). Legislative adoption of a discovery rule in occupational disease cases dramatically expands the coverage of the statute in a manner that further effectuates its purpose, and provides remedies where they might otherwise have been unavailable under the ODA.
Plaintiff argues that this Court should presume the Legislature intended retroactive application of § 660(b) in light of the latent nature of certain occupational diseases. While the humanitarian purpose of § 660(b) is apparent, its language is clear. "Where the meaning of a statute is plain on its face, this Court will enforce the statute according to its terms for there is no need for construction; the legislative intent is to be ascertained from the act itself." Burlington Elec. Dept., 154 Vt. at 335, 576 A.2d at 452 (quoting Hill v. Conway, 143 Vt. 91, 93, 463 A.2d 232, 233 (1983) (internal quotations omitted)). Nothing in § 660(b) implies an intent for the discovery rule to apply retroactively to occupational diseases. Ordinarily, a statute does not apply to cases pending at the time it becomes effective. 1 V.S.A. § 214(b)(1) reads: " he amendment or repeal of an act or statutory provision . . . shall not ffect the operation of the act or provision prior to the effective date of the amendment or the repeal thereof." § 660(b) specifically repealed the ODA, and replaced it with a discovery rule. Unfortunately for plaintiff, the line was drawn in a manner that does not afford him relief.
Plaintiff's final contention is that any statutory interpretation which denies his claim violates his right to a remedy under Chapter 1, Article 4 of the Vermont Constitution, which provides that " very person within this state ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which one may receive in person, property or character . . . ." Vt. Const. ch. I, art. 4. This Court has equated Article 4 with the federal Due Process Clause. See Mellin v. Flood Brook Union School Dist. ___ Vt. ___, ___, 790 A.2d 408, 422 (2001). "[Article 4] does not create substantive claims, it merely provides access to the courts." Quesnel v. Town of Middlebury, 167 Vt. 252, 258, 706 A.2d 436, 439 (1997) (citations omitted). In Quesnel, this Court determined that the lack of a statutory or common law cause of action did not in itself violate Article 4. Id. Because of the plain language of the ODA, and because the Legislature chose not to apply section 660(b) retroactively, plaintiff lacks a statutory or common law cause of action. The claim that plaintiff has been denied a constitutional right to a remedy is without merit as it is within the Legislature's authority to define and limit a cause of action.
Chapter II, Section 70 of the Vermont Constitution expressly authorizes the Legislature to establish the Worker's Compensation laws. The ODA is part of the Worker's Compensation statutory framework. " he right to maintain such an action is afforded only by the Legislature." Quesnel, 167 Vt. at 258, 706 A.2d at 439. This Court has found that while the Legislature may create "reasonable limitations on rights of action . . . due process does not permit the annulment of vested rights." Lillicrap v. Martin, 156 Vt. 165, 178, 591 A.2d 41, 48 (1991). The Legislature never interfered with a vested right of the plaintiff, rather,
Page 1 2 3 4 Vermont Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|