McNally v. Department of Path, 13 A.3d 656

Claimant worked for the State of Vermont for sixteen years, ending as Benefits Program Specialist handling multiple health care eligibility tasks with extensive typing.
She began experiencing hand fatigue mid-2007; ergonomic adjustments were made but pain persisted.
In February 2008, a three-person medical team attributed her bilateral enthesopathy to overuse from work activities, with some experts attributing a work-related etiology and others contradicting that.
Claimant’s snow-shoveling incident in mid-February 2008 preceded intensified symptoms and treatment, after which the employer implemented further ergonomic changes.
The Commissioner denied benefits, stating a chronic pre-existing condition may be related but the claim was tied to a non-work-related aggravation; the decision did not include explicit findings on causation or the role of daily living activities.
The Board reversed and remanded to clarify whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, how it related to shoveling, and whether shoveling was a normal activity of daily living.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the snow shovel event a normal activity of daily living?	McNally argues the snow shoveling must be examined as a normal daily activity that cannot break causation.	The Commissioner did not clearly determine the daily-living activity status of the shoveling.	Remanded for clarification on whether shoveling was a normal daily activity.
Did the Commissioner properly determine causation between work, pre-existing condition, and the snow-shoveling incident?	The injury was related to pre-existing work-related disability exacerbated by the shoveling, not a wholly non-work event.	The decision rests on evidence and the Commissioner’s interpretation; findings were incomplete but the non-work event contributed to denial.	Remanded for explicit findings on causation and its relation to the pre-existing condition.
Did the Commissioner fail to make necessary findings and properly apply law in evaluating medical testimony?	The Commissioner merely recited expert opinions without articulating findings or applying the legal test for persuasiveness.	The decision relied on the comparative weight of medical testimony within the statutory framework.	Remanded for explicit findings and application of the legal standard.

Kapusta v. Dep’t of Health/Risk Mgmt., 186 Vt. 276, 980 A.2d 236 (2009 VT 81) (overrules only when findings have no evidentiary support or are irrational)
Morin v. Essex Optical/The Hartford, 178 Vt. 29, 868 A.2d 729 (2005 VT 15) (limits deference to findings if not properly supported by law)
Cyr v. McDermott’s, Inc., 187 Vt. 392, 996 A.2d 709 (2010 VT 19) (requires initial analysis of whether injury arose out of and in the course of employment)
Shaw v. Dutton Berry Farm, 160 Vt. 594, 632 A.2d 18 (1993 VT) (causal connection may persist despite non-work activities)
Krupp v. Krupp, 126 Vt. 511, 236 A.2d 653 (1967 VT) (distinguishes between recurrent and aggravated pre-existing injuries)
LaFountain v. Vt. Emp’t Sec. Bd., 133 Vt. 42, 330 A.2d 468 (1974 VT) (adopts deferential review of administrative findings; construe to support judgment)
In re E.C., 1 A.3d 1007 (2010 VT 50) (mem. decision addressing proper placement of findings)
Pacher v. Fairdale Farms, 166 Vt. 626, 699 A.2d 43 (1997 VT) (discusses recurrence vs. aggravation in related injuries)