Ehren Hill v. Agri-Mark, Inc., 331 A.3d 1131

Claimant worked for Agri-Mark, Inc. and suffered a hernia in March 2021, which was found to be work-related.
Shortly after the injury, claimant left Agri-Mark to work at Meeting House Furniture; later, he held concurrent employment at Meeting House and Black Back Pub.
Claimant left his job at Meeting House before becoming disabled due to hernia surgery on October 8, 2021, and only continued working at Black Back Pub up to that point.
The calculation of claimant’s disability benefits depends on his "average weekly wages" during the 26 weeks before injury, specifically how concurrent employment wages are counted.
The Department of Labor’s Rule 8.1500 allows inclusion of wages from multiple employers only if the claimant is concurrently employed by them at the time of injury or disability.
Plaintiff challenged the validity of Rule 8.1500, arguing it exceeded the statutory authority under 21 V.S.A. § 650(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 8.1500 exceeds the Department’s statutory rulemaking authority under 21 V.S.A. § 650(a)	Hill argued Rule 8.1500 improperly restricts wage inclusion to only those employers at the time of injury/disability, contrary to legislative intent to capture all concurrent employment during the 26-week lookback.	Agri-Mark argued the plain language requires concurrent employment at the time of injury and that the rule is consistent with the statute’s purpose and legislative grant.	Rule 8.1500 is valid; only wages from employers where claimant was concurrently employed at the time of injury/disability are included in average weekly wage calculation.

In re Vt. Verde Antique Int’l, Inc., 174 Vt. 208 (scope of administrative agency rulemaking authority)
Martin v. Agency of Transp. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 175 Vt. 80 (presumption of validity for administrative regulations)
Letourneau v. A.N. Deringer/Wausau Ins. Co., 184 Vt. 422 (deference to agency interpretation of workers’ compensation statutes)
Cehic v. Mack Molding, Inc., 179 Vt. 602 (standard of review for commissioner’s legal conclusions)
Soares v. Barnet Fire Dist. #2, 217 Vt. 49 (plain meaning and legislative intent in statutory interpretation)