10-12WC. Jack Lehneman v. Town of Colchester.

CourtVermont
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

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT