Bonanno v. Verizon Business Network Systems and Sedgwick Claims Management Systems
93 A.3d 146
Vt.2014Background
- Nicholas Bonanno (employee) settled a workers’ compensation dispute with Verizon; the Department of Labor approved a Form 15 settlement on July 13, 2010.
- Approved settlement provided: $230,000 lump sum (to be paid within 15 days of approval), TTD (temporary total disability) through May 1, 2010, and continued medical benefits until 30 days after Medicare Set Aside approval.
- Verizon issued a reduced lump-sum check, claiming credit for TTD payments made after May 1, 2010; Bonanno disputed the credit and also a denied May 25, 2010 medical bill.
- Bonanno sued to enforce the settlement; defendants conceded a calculation error and paid the medical bill after discovery was compelled, but maintained entitlement to credit for post–May 1 TTD payments.
- Superior court granted defendants summary judgment, holding post–May 1 TTD payments were not "voluntary" because employer remained obligated to pay until the Commissioner approved the settlement; court awarded Bonanno $1,000 in attorney fees and $250 costs for prevailing on the medical-bill issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post–May 1, 2010 TTD payments were "voluntary" so Bonanno could claim the full $230,000 lump sum | Bonanno: Verizon could have terminated TTD effective May 1 by filing a Form 27, so later payments were voluntary advances that should not reduce lump sum | Verizon: Under Workers’ Comp. Rules, employer remained obligated to pay TTD until Commissioner approved settlement; thus payments were not voluntary and credited against lump sum | Payments were not voluntary; employer obligated to pay until Commissioner approval, and approved settlement retroactively terminated TTD as of May 1, so credit was proper |
| Whether voluntariness is a factual issue precluding summary judgment | Bonanno: voluntariness is a question of fact for the jury | Verizon: law and rules establish no genuine dispute of material fact | Court: no genuine factual dispute; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether Bonanno "prevailed" and is entitled to attorneys’ fees under 21 V.S.A. § 675(a) because defendants paid the medical bill during litigation | Bonanno: lawsuit was the catalyst; defendants’ payment constitutes a win entitling him to fees | Defendants: payment lacked judicial imprimatur per Buckhannon; voluntary change should not trigger fees | Court: preserves Vermont’s catalyst theory; Bonanno prevailed on the medical-bill claim and is eligible for fees under §675(a) |
| Whether the fee award ($1,000 + $250 costs) was reasonable | Bonanno: requested much larger fee based on time spent | Verizon: no judicial relief; fees not warranted or should be minimal | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion; reduced award justified by peripheral nature of claim and plaintiff’s discovery delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Norfolk & Dedham Fire Ins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 318 A.2d 659 (Vt. 1974) (voluntariness of payment in subrogation context determined by equities and narrowly construed)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (U.S. Supreme Court rejected the catalyst theory for fee awards requiring judicial imprimatur)
- Kirchner v. Giebink, 584 A.2d 1120 (Vt. 1990) (Vermont recognized catalyst theory for attorneys’ fees under workers’ compensation statute)
- Ianelli v. U.S. Bank, 996 A.2d 722 (Vt. 2010) (standard of review and summary judgment principles)
- Merrill v. Univ. of Vt., 329 A.2d 635 (Vt. 1974) (burden on employer to show that disability or compensable condition has ceased)