03-11WC. Arthur Taft v. Central Vermont Public Service Corp.

• Court: Vermont

Vermont Workers Compensation 2011. 03-11WC. Arthur Taft v. Central Vermont Public Service Corp Arthur Taft v. Central Vermont Public Service Corp.(January 25, 2011)STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOROpinion No. 03-11WCBy: Phyllis Phillips, Esq. Hearing OfficerFor: Anne M. Noonan CommissionerState File No. L-23771RULING ON CLAIMANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEESClaimant seeks attorney fees associated with establishing his entitlement to mileage reimbursement. Defendant asserts that under the circumstances of this claim, particularly the fact that the disputed issues were resolved prior to the scheduled formal hearing, there is no basis for awarding attorney fees. The facts are not substantially disputed. Claimant suffered severe burns in a work-related accident that occurred in June 1998. At the time, Claimant lived in Springfield, Vermont but had been commuting to Rutland in order to train for a new position to which he had been assigned in Springfield. The injury occurred in Rutland. As treatment for his injury, Claimant underwent regular physical and occupational therapy sessions at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center (DHMC). These treatments are ongoing, and continue to this day. For many years after the injury, Defendant reimbursed Claimant's mileage for trips to and from his DHMC therapy appointments, as required by Workers' Compensation Rule 12. In November 2006, however, it sought to discontinue mileage reimbursement on the grounds that the treatment Claimant was receiving was equally available at a facility closer to his home. In support of its discontinuance, Defendant offered a medical opinion to that effect from Dr. Wing. The Department rejected the discontinuance, whereupon mileage reimbursement continued as before. In October 2008 Defendant sought again to discontinue Claimant's mileage reimbursement, on the same grounds and supported by essentially the same opinion from Dr. Wing. Again the Department rejected the discontinuance. Later, in December 2008 it also rejected Defendant's request for reconsideration. Shortly after the Department rejected the second proposed discontinuance, in November 2008 Defendant's attorney proffered another, separate basis for recalculating Claimant's mileage reimbursement, this one having to do with Claimant's "regular commute distance" to and from work. According to...