Henri Cyr v. McDermott‘s, Inc.
No. 08-290
Vermont Supreme Court
March 5, 2010
2010 VT 19 | 996 A.2d 709
Present: Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.
¶ 19. We thus reverse the conviction on Count III of the information with respect to each defendant. We remand the case for resentencing under the remaining convictions of sexual assault and furnishing alcohol to a minor. See State v. Martin, 2009 VT 15, ¶ 17, 185 Vt. 286, 973 A.2d 56 (requiring “redetermination of the full sentencing package” when defendants challenge interdependent sentences (quotation omitted)).
Defendants’ convictions for aggravated sexual assault are vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing under the remaining convictions.
John A. Serafino of Ryan Smith & Carbine, Ltd., Rutland, for Defendant-Appellee.
Caroline S. Earle, Assistant Attorney General, Montpelier, for Vermont Attorney General‘s Office.
¶ 1. Skoglund, J. The workers’ compensation structure in Vermont is meant to provide employees with reliable compensation for work-related injuries while limiting employer liability to legitimate harm arising out of, and in the course of, employment. Claimant Henri Cyr worked for McDermott‘s, Inc., a hauling company that transports milk in bulk from farms to creameries. He was employed as a part-time mechanic‘s helper, keeping the maintenance garage clean and occasionally servicing trucks. After accidentally drinking a caustic agеnt used to clean the milk trucks, he suffered severe internal chemical burns. He filed a claim for workers’ compensation under Title 21, chapter 9 of the Vermont Statutes. The Commissioner of Labor granted summary judgment to employer, finding claimant was intoxicated at the time his injury occurred and, thus, compensation was not allowed under
¶ 2. In reviewing the facts of this case, we take them in the light most favorable to claimant, the nonmoving party below. See Thompson v. Hi Tech Motor Sports, Inc., 2008 VT 15, ¶ 14, 183 Vt. 218, 945 A.2d 368. Claimant had been employed by employer for about ten years before the accident. In late April 2006, one of claimant‘s co-workers observed a full, apparently abandoned Mountain Dew bottle on the counter in the office and offered it to claimant. Claimant accepted the bottle, which was eventually moved to employer‘s refrigerator. Approximately a week later, when that refrigerator was being cleaned, the co-worker again offered the bottle to claimant, as was apparently the general custom with unclaimed food or beverages in the company‘s
¶ 3. During the course of his emergency-room treatment, hospital staff conduсted blood work and a urinalysis. Although claimant denied that he was intoxicated when he drank from the Mountain Dew bottle, an expert for employer reviewed claimant‘s medical records and concluded that claimant‘s blood alcohol content (BAC) at the time he drank the caustic substance was approximately 0.15 to 0.16, roughly double the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle.
¶ 4. On June 7, 2006, claimant filed a Notice of Injury and Claim for Compensation. Employer initially denied the claim on June 27 because claimant‘s injury did not “aris[e] out of employment” nor was it “sustained in [the] course and scope of employment.” On October 30, employer again denied the claim on the same basis and added that “claimant was intoxicated at the time
Compensation shall not be allowed for an injury caused by an employee‘s wilful intention to injure himself, herself, or anothеr or by or during his or her intoxication or by an employee‘s failure to use a safety appliance provided for his or her use. The burden of proof shall be upon the employer if he or she claims the benefit of the provisions of this section.
¶ 5. On appeal, claimant argues that a compensable injury occurred when he was given the bottle containing a caustic chemical at work, and, thus, the Commissioner erred in looking to the exemptions in § 649, there being no allegation that he was intoxicated when he received the bottle. He further argues that, even if his injury occurred when he drank from the bottle, his rebuttal evidence put the fact of his contemporaneous intoxication in dispute.2 Employer cоunters that claimant‘s injury occurred when he drank from the bottle while intoxicated, barring recovery under § 649, and that claimant‘s rebuttal evidence was insufficient to undermine the Commissioner‘s determination of intoxication.
¶ 6. For our review, the Commissioner certified only the issue of whether claimant‘s claim was barred by § 649. See
I.
¶ 7. Our Workers’ Compensation Act,
¶ 8. The principle, and initial, requirement for compensation eligibility is found in
¶ 9. It is the claimant, as plaintiff in the action, who shoulders the burden of proving that both the elements of compensation eligibility are met in the first instance. Miller v. IBM Corp., 161 Vt. 213, 214, 637 A.2d 1072, 1072-73 (1993) (“[A] claimant must prove both that the accident (1) arose out of the employment, and (2) occurred in the course of the employment.“); Greenfield v. Cent. Vt. Ry., 114 Vt. 440, 442, 48 A.2d 854, 855 (1946) (“To be compensable an injury must be the result of an accident to an employee, arising out of and in the course of his employment. The claimant here [employee‘s widow] has the burden of showing a causal connection between the accident which caused decedent‘s death and his employment.” (citations omitted)). Only after this hurdle is surmounted does the burden shift to the employer to show that an affirmative defense, as provided in § 649, bars compensation. In relevant part, § 649 states that “[c]ompensation shall not be allowed” if the claimed injury was caused by or during a series of prohibited acts. Id. This plain language requires a finding that a worker is entitled to compensation before these exemptions come into play. See Scott v. Hughes, 132 P.3d 889, 897 (Kan. 2006) (“Whether certain conduct arises out of the scope and in the coursе of employment is the threshold question . . . . Whether an employer can advance a viable defense to workers compensation liability . . . is among later questions to be addressed once it is established that conduct arises out of and in the course of employment.“).
¶ 10. The question of “arising out of or in the course of” employment has been well litigated. In Vermont, we subscribe to the “positional-risk doctrine” which mandates that “an employee‘s injury arises out of employment ‘if it would not have occurred but for the fact that the conditions and obligations of the employment placed the claimant in the position where claimant was injured.‘” Miller, 161 Vt. at 214, 637 A.2d at 1073 (quoting Shaw, 160 Vt. at 599, 632 A.2d at 20); see also Shaw, 160 Vt. at 597, 632 A.2d at 19 (overruling Rothfarb v. Camp Awanee, Inc., 116 Vt. 172, 176, 71 A.2d 569, 572 (1950), which required showing probable cause, because that case was nоt “true to the remedial purpose of workers’ compensation” and “gave too narrow a meaning to ‘arising out of employment’ “).
¶ 11. Under positional-risk analysis, courts recognize that even when an injury occurs away from the workplace, its cause can be distinct in both time and space. For example, in Daniello v. Machise Express Co. an employee was splashed with jet fuel during the course of his work and, upon returning home, suffered severe burns when he struck a match in order to light his trash incinerator. 289 A.2d 558, 559 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1972), aff‘d, 299 A.2d 423 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1973) (per curiam). In ruling for the claimant, the court found his injury arose out of and was causally connected to the course of his employment. Id. at 560-62. Similarly, in Lujan v. Houston General Insurance Co., a painter, soaked with paint, paint-thinner, and gasoline during the work-day, was burned on returning home when the pilоt light of his water heater ignited the fumes on his body. 756 S.W.2d 295 (Tex. 1988). The Texas Supreme Court held that his injury arose out of employment even though it occurred at home. Id. at 297-98.
¶ 12. Consequently, we find that claimant was put in a “positional-risk” situation when he was given the bottle containing the industrial cleaning agent at work which put the mechanism of his injury in motion. His consumption of the caustic chemicals, several days later, followed logically from his receipt of the bottle of what he understood was a soft drink. Thus, for the purposes of determining whether his injury arose out of his employment, we hold that, but for his employment, the instrument of his injury would never have arrived in his hands. Therefore, it arose out of his employment.
¶ 13. The second half of the inquiry - whether claimant‘s injury was within the course of employment - generally “tests work-connection as to time, place and activity; that is, it demands that the injury be shown to have arisen within the time and space boundaries of the employment, and in the course of an activity whose purpose is related to the employment.” 1 A. Larson & L. Larson, Larson‘s Workers’ Compensation Law § 12.01, at 12-1 (2009). This is largely a fact-intensive analysis, one we cannot undertake upon the record before us. We thus remand the case to
II.
¶ 14. Because it is possible that an analysis of § 649 will arise on remand, we turn now to the certified question and an examination of this exception to the general compensation scheme. Rather than undertake the threshold analysis required under § 618, the Commissioner relied solely on § 649 to grant judgment in employer‘s favor and deny claimant recovery. This Court reviews grants of summary judgment de novo, employing the same standard used in the court below. Letourneau v. A.N. Deringer/Wausau Ins. Co., 2008 VT 106, ¶ 7, 184 Vt. 422, 966 A.2d 133. Summary judgment is appropriate when a party has demonstrated that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
¶ 15. The manner in which we interpret statutes is well established. “[T]he bedrock rule of statutory construction is to determine and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.” Delta Psi Fraternity v. City of Burlington, 2008 VT 129, ¶ 7, 185 Vt. 129, 969 A.2d 54 (quotation omitted). To determine legislative intent, we first presume that the Legislature intended the plain meaning of the statute. In re Ambassador Ins. Co., 2008 VT 105, ¶ 18, 184 Vt. 408, 965 A.2d 486. Where “the literal meaning of the words is inсonsistent with legislative intent” and the “precise wording of a statute produces results which are manifestly unjust, absurd, unreasonable or unintended, or conflicts with other expressions of legislative intent,” legislative intent must prevail.
¶ 16. Section 649 includes three separate categories of misconduct that can bar an injured worker‘s recovery. Beyond excluding injuries “caused . . . by or during . . . intoxication,” the statute provides employers with a defense for injuries caused by an employee‘s “wilful intention to injure himself, herself, or another,” and injuries caused by an “еmployee‘s failure to use a safety appliance provided for his or her use.” These latter two exemptions are forms of malfeasance, and including the intoxication provision amidst them suggests that the Legislature viewed workplace intoxication as another form of misconduct for which an employee could not receive injury compensation, regardless of whether an injury was caused because of the intoxication or merely caused during the intoxication.
¶ 17. Our interpretation of this statute centers on the term “cause,” as this word modifies the two scenarios in which the intoxication exemption of § 649 may apply. When used in a statute, “cause” is generally understood to mean proximate cause. Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 536-37 (1995). This general rule holds true when “cause” appears in the intoxication defenses that are often part of workers’ compensation statutes. See Smith v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 176 Cal. Rptr. 843, 847-48 (Ct. App. 1981) (holding that “caused by intoxication” refers to proximate cause); see also Kinsey v. Champion Am. Serv. Ctr., 232 S.E.2d 720, 723 (S.C. 1977) (“[I]n order for intoxication to be a bar to recovery it must be the proximate cause of the injury.” (citing Reeves v. Carolina Foundry & Mach. Works, 9 S.E.2d 919 (1940))); VanSteenwyk v. Baumgartner Trees & Landscaping, 2007 SD 36, ¶ 12, 731 N.W.2d 214 (interpreting statute denying compensation for any injury “due to . . . intoxication” as referring to proximate cause); Larson, supra, § 36.03[3][a], at 36-23 to 36-24 (reciting the same). In fact, the major disagreement in decisions addressing this exemption has been whether the intoxication must be the sole proximate cause or merely a major or primary cause. See Smith, 176 Cal. Rptr. at 847-48.
¶ 18. While it may seеm at odds with the “no fault” regime of workers’ compensation to include a heavily litigated tort
¶ 19. As explained above, in workers’ compensation cases, we recognize that even when an injury occurs away from the workplace, its cause can be distinct in both time and space. Here, we find that claimant‘s injury arose out of his employment when he accepted the bottle containing the caustic chemicals. That act put the mechanism of injury in motion. This is not to suggest that his injury was inevitable once he received the bottle or that no superseding, intervening factor - such as intoxication - could have prevented his injury or altered its mechanism. However, no one suggests he was intoxicated at that time.3 Drinking what he believed to be a soft drink several days later was akin to the fuel-truck driver in Daniello innocently lighting his incinerator;
¶ 20. Our resolution of this issue makes it unnecessary to address the balance of the parties’ arguments. We reverse and remand to the Commissioner for a determination of whether claimant‘s injury occurred in the course of his employment.
Reversed and remanded.
¶ 21. Reiber, C.J., dissenting. This case is an example of the adage: “Exceptional cases must not be permitted to beget bad law.” Downer v. Battles, 103 Vt. 201, 204, 152 A. 805, 806 (1931). Although I am sympathetic to claimant‘s position, I cannot agree with the majority‘s decision, which discards the language of the statute to avoid exclusion of claimant‘s injury. The plain statutory language of
¶ 22. At the outset, it is important to acknowledge two underlying considerations, which, although they permeate the case, are not directly addressed by the majority. The first is that the facts of this case are unusual and extreme. The injury claimant suffered can be described as nothing other than horrific. No one can reаd these facts without feeling sympathy for claimant. Moreover, the circumstances in which he suffered this injury are atypical in that although claimant consumed alcohol prior to the injury, he did so at home and his alcohol use was not a cause of the injury which also happened at home.
¶ 23. The second underlying issue is that Vermont‘s intoxication exemption is unique. As noted, Vermont‘s workers’ compensation statute disallows compensation for “an injury caused . . . by or during [an employee‘s] intoxication.”
¶ 24. These two underlying considerations combine to crеate a difficult situation. Claimant has suffered a horrible injury, and we must determine whether the facts of his injury meet the standards set out in the workers’ compensation statute without the benefit of precedent or case law construing analogous provisions from other states. Plainly, our statute does not require a causal connection between an employee‘s intoxication and his injury. Under our statute therefore some claimants may be denied coverage for an injury that, absent the claimants’ unrelated intoxication, would have resulted in coverage. This is one such case. While this result may appear unfair,5 it is not our task to measure the relative fairness of the result, but to determine if it
¶ 25. My decision rests on the language of the statute, which states that “[c]ompensation shall not be allowed for an injury caused . . . by or during [an employee‘s] intoxication.”
¶ 26. In the arena of workers’ compensation, we must interpret the provisions of the statute with two important overall policy considerations in mind. First, the statute‘s directive that “[a]ll process and procedure under the provisions of this chapter shall be as summary and simple as reasonably may be.”
the suggested remedy for the situation is through legislative amendment, not judicial action.
¶ 27. The Commissioner has interpreted the during language of § 649 to mean that “the fact of a Claimant‘s intoxication at the time of injury is an absolute bar to recovery, even if there is no causal relationship between the two.” Thus, in this case, the Commissioner determined that claimant could receive no benefits because he was intoxicated at the time the injury took place - when he drank from the bottle.6
¶ 28. The majority rejects the Commissioner‘s interpretatiоn as at odds with the statute‘s overall remedial purpose and instead holds that intoxication must proximately cause the injury for there to be no coverage. The majority concludes that claimant‘s injury arose out of his workplace act of taking the bottle home, and therefore a proximate cause of claimant‘s injury was also when defendant brought the bottle home. Because claimant was not intoxicated at the time he brought the bottle home, the majority reasons, § 649 does not bar coverage.
¶ 29. I have two problems with this interpretation. First, it conflates the concepts of whether an injury arose out of a claimant‘s employment,
¶ 30. In this case, although claimant‘s injury was initially caused by his act of bringing the bottle home and thus arose out of his employment, claimant‘s injury was also caused by his act of drinking from the bottle. Our cases involving proximate cause recognize that there can be “more than one act of negligence, each a proximate cause, [that] may combine to produce an injury.” Tufts v. Wyand, 148 Vt. 528, 530, 536 A.2d 541, 542 (1987). I believe we must consider both оf these events in our analysis of § 649 since they both contributed to the injury.
¶ 31. On the second point, the majority‘s construction of the statute essentially reads “during” out of the statute. I believe the Legislature inserted the word “during” for a reason, and I cannot agree with the majority‘s interpretation which makes this language meaningless. See Racine, 133 Vt. at 114, 329 A.2d at 654 (“[W]e must presume that all language is inserted in a statute advisedly.“); see also State v. Phillips, 142 Vt. 283, 286 n.1, 455 A.2d 325, 327 n.1 (1982) (rejecting interpretation that would read two statutory clauses as “synonymous” because it would render one clause “mere surplusage“).
¶ 32. The majority‘s sole attempt to define “during” is its statement that this language means “an employer must affirmatively show that intoxication played a role in causing the injury, either actively - ‘caused by’ - оr passively - ‘caused during.’ ” Ante, ¶ 18. I fail to understand how the concept of passive
¶ 33. If the question before us was whether the Legislature intended to bar recovery for injuries caused solely by intoxication, rather than those in which intoxication was merely a contributing cause, this distinction may have some relevance. That is not, however, the question presented to us in this case. The statute excepts from coverage injuries caused during intoxication, and I believe we must implement this plain language. Under the undisputed facts of this case, claimant cannot recover compensation for his injuries. The facts demonstrate that claimant was intoxicated during the time he drank from the bottle and caused his injury.7
¶ 35. I am authorized to state that Justice Burgess joins this dissent.
Notes
Larson, supra, § 36.03[2], at 36-22.1-36-23. Despite this strong criticism, however,[T]his type of statute is as foreign to compensation principle as anything cоuld be. It can only be described as a sort of special penal prohibition measure applicable exclusively to employees. Other people may be punished for drunkenness by small fines or a night in jail, but if it can be proved that a worker was intoxicated when blinded by an explosion on the premises, although the worker would have been blinded just the same if sober, the penalty is the loss of compensation rights, not to mention common-law rights, running into many thousands of dollars. Such statutes, whether phrased in their present form by inadvertence or intent, are preposterous, and should be speedily amended before they work some such staggering injustice.