10-12WC. Jack Lehneman v. Town of Colchester.
Court | Vermont |
Vermont Workers Compensation
2012.
10-12WC.
Jack Lehneman v. Town of Colchester
Jack Lehneman v. Town of Colchester(March 13, 2012)STATE
OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABORJack
Lehneman v. Town of ColchesterOpinion No. 10-12WCBy:
Phyllis Phillips, Esq. Hearing OfficerFor: Anne M. Noonan CommissionerState File No. CC-2409RULING ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
APPEARANCES:
David Mickenberg, Esq., for Claimant
Wesley Lawrence, Esq., for Defendant
ISSUE PRESENTED:
Did Claimant's dental injury arise out of and in the course of
his employment for Defendant?
EXHIBITS:
Claimant's Exhibit 1: Affidavit of Jack Lehneman, December 6,
2011
FINDINGS OF FACT:
The following facts are undisputed:(fn1)
1. Claimant is a 40-year-old veteran police officer who has
served the communities of both Milton and Colchester.
2. On March 24, 2011 Claimant was working a 12-hour shift as a
police officer for Defendant.
3. In keeping with longstanding practice, Defendant does not
schedule assigned lunch or dinner breaks for police officers on 12-hour shifts.
Rather, it expects officers to remain on duty during their entire shift, and
encourages them to eat as they conduct their work over that period.
4. Defendant neither controls nor instructs police officers as to
when, where or what to eat while on duty. Officers are free to obtain their
meals from any source of their own selection, and to eat them when- and
wherever they choose. Should they decide to eat at the police station, the
premises are equipped with multiple refrigerators, utensils, microwave ovens
and other necessary items to facilitate meals while working.
5. On the evening of March 24, 2011 Claimant purchased a
hamburger for dinner from a local restaurant. He returned to his office and
began doing paperwork while eating. As he bit into the sandwich, his front
tooth hit a piece of bacon and broke.
6. Claimant immediately notified his supervisor and co-workers of
his injury, and completed an incident report. Subsequently, on March 28, 2011 a
First Report of Injury (Form 1) was filed with the Department of Labor.
7. Claimant sought dental treatment from Dr. Kentworthy, who
determined that his tooth needed complete removal and replacement. The cost of
this treatment is estimated to be approximately $4,700.00.
8. Defendant has denied Claimant's claim for workers'
compensation benefits on the grounds that his dental injury was not incurred as
a result of his employment.
DISCUSSION:
1. In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the
moving party must show that there exist no genuine issues of material fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial