Debra Morisseau v. Hannaford Brothers, 141 A.3d 745

Claimant, a baker, suffered a compensable right-wrist injury in 2009 with permanent impairment despite treatment.
A Return to Work Plan (approved) anticipated sedentary work with ergonomic supports and noted possible assistive devices (e.g., voice-recognition) if needed.
Claimant obtained part-time work as a home support aide and a client-directed caregiver; her wages later equaled or exceeded pre-injury average weekly wage and she had worked at least 60 days by May 2012.
Treating physician and vocational counselor recommended voice-recognition software to reduce pain flares, improve productivity, and expand employability.
The Department’s vocational rehabilitation specialist terminated vocational services (finding successful return to suitable employment) and denied voice-recognition as both a vocational and medical benefit; claimant appealed and the Commissioner granted employer summary judgment.
On review, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed: claimant had returned to suitable, regular full-time employment for purposes of terminating vocational services, and the evidence was insufficient to show voice-recognition software was a compensable medical benefit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claimant’s current jobs constitute "suitable employment" (so vocational rehabilitation may be terminated)	Claimant (Morisseau) argued her employment security was fragile (two part-time/client-directed jobs) and factual disputes remain precluding summary judgment	Hannaford argued claimant’s positions met WCVR criteria: skills, commute, suitable wage, and jobs are expected to continue indefinitely	Court held claimant had returned to suitable employment; counselor’s general opinion of uncertain "job security" was conclusory and insufficient to create a triable issue on the "regular, full-time" element
Whether voice-recognition software is a compensable medical benefit under 21 V.S.A. § 640(a)	Morisseau argued physician’s recommendation showed software was medically necessary to prevent flares and maintain function	Hannaford argued software is not a medical device/assistive device under the statute and claimant provided insufficient evidentiary detail linking software to medical necessity	Court held record lacked specific evidence (frequency/duration of computer use, risk of deterioration, how software restores/maintains basic life functions) to show software was a reasonable medical expense or assistive device; summary judgment affirmed

Close v. Superior Excavating Co., 166 Vt. 318, 693 A.2d 729 (Vt. 1997) (endorsing flexible approach to determining compensable medical benefits)
Clayton v. Unsworth, 188 Vt. 432, 8 A.3d 1066 (Vt. 2010) (summary judgment burden of production on moving party)
In re Shenandoah LLC, 190 Vt. 149, 27 A.3d 1078 (Vt. 2011) (conclusory affidavits insufficient to create triable fact)
Starr Farm Beach Campowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Boylan, 174 Vt. 503, 811 A.2d 155 (Vt. 2002) (conclusory affidavit fails to raise triable issue)
Mello v. Cohen, 168 Vt. 639, 724 A.2d 471 (Vt. 1998) (plaintiff cannot rely on conclusory allegations to defeat summary judgment)
Bonanno v. Verizon Bus. Network Sys., 196 Vt. 62, 93 A.3d 146 (Vt. 2014) (summary judgment proper where undisputed facts entitle moving party to judgment)
Stone v. Town of Irasburg, 196 Vt. 356, 98 A.3d 769 (Vt. 2014) (on appeal from summary judgment, review facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)