256 A.3d 84
Vt.2021Background
- Claimant (Zebic) injured her knee and lower back at work in Sept. 2015; received temporary disability and later a PPD lump-sum for knee impairment.
- In March 2017 claimant suffered a subarachnoid hemorrhage (ruptured aneurysm) requiring emergency surgery and thereafter could not work.
- Claimant had later spinal fusion (July 2018); an IME in Aug. 2019 rated her back impairment 28% and concluded she was permanently and totally disabled when considering the hemorrhage.
- Rhino Foods denied temporary-total-disability and vocational-rehabilitation benefits for the July 2018–Aug. 2019 period, arguing the hemorrhage—not the work injury—caused claimant’s incapacity. The Commissioner found claimant failed to prove causation and denied those benefits.
- Claimant appealed to Chittenden Superior Court under 21 V.S.A. § 670 and proposed three certified questions; the Commissioner certified only two. Claimant then sought review in the Vermont Supreme Court of the Commissioner’s refusal to certify the third question under § 672.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the § 672 appeal for lack of jurisdiction because claimant had already appealed to the superior court under § 670, and the statutory routes are mutually exclusive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over claimant’s § 672 appeal when a simultaneous appeal is pending in superior court under § 670 | Zebic: statutes should be liberally construed so mixed factual and legal issues may be appealed through superior court; Commissioner cannot unilaterally funnel issues to the Supreme Court | Rhino Foods: Roethke and statutes make the two avenues mutually exclusive; claimant’s superior-court appeal precludes a direct § 672 appeal | Held: No jurisdiction—appeal to superior court under § 670 precludes direct appeal to Supreme Court under § 672 |
| Whether a party may appeal the Commissioner’s refusal to certify a proposed question to superior court by bringing a § 672 appeal to the Supreme Court | Zebic: Commissioner’s denial of certification is reviewable; otherwise Commissioner could block appeals | Rhino Foods: denial to certify is discretionary and not an appealable § 672 matter once superior-court appeal filed | Held: Court did not reach merits because lack of jurisdiction; declined to decide whether refusal is reviewable |
| Proper forum when appeal involves both factual findings and pure legal questions | Zebic: where mixed issues exist, all issues should proceed to superior court for de novo/jury review | Rhino Foods: parties must choose remedy; Roethke precludes simultaneous appeals | Held: Court relied on Roethke: election to appeal to superior court bars a direct § 672 appeal; did not rule on whether pure legal questions can be tried in superior court |
| Whether the Commissioner erred in declining to certify the specific legal standard question (standard of "plausibility" for causation) | Zebic: Commissioner wrongly refused to certify the legal-question to superior court | Rhino Foods: issue not preserved and, in any event, Commissioner’s certification is discretionary | Held: Not reached—disposition was jurisdictional dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Roethke v. Jake’s Original Bar & Grill, 772 A.2d 492 (Vt. 2001) (establishes that appeals to superior court under §§ 670–71 and direct appeals to Supreme Court under § 672 are mutually exclusive)
- Stoll v. Burlington Elec. Dep’t, 977 A.2d 1282 (Vt. 2009) (affirmed that when a party appeals to superior court the § 672 route is foreclosed; addressed pure legal question jurisdiction)
- Farris v. Bryant Grinder Corp./Wausau Ins. Co., 869 A.2d 131 (Vt. 2005) (describes de novo nature of superior court review of Commissioner's determinations)
- Crosby v. City of Burlington, 844 A.2d 722 (Vt. 2003) (illustrates superior court addressing legal standards in the context of a de novo jury trial)