13-11WC. Josef Knoff v. Josef Knoff Illuminating.

• Court: Vermont

Vermont Workers Compensation 2011. 13-11WC. Josef Knoff v. Josef Knoff Illuminating Josef Knoff v. Josef Knoff Illuminating(June 2, 2011)STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOROpinion No. 13-11WCBy: Jane Woodruff, Esq. Hearing OfficerFor: Anne M. Noonan CommissionerState File No. P-16619RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTAPPEARANCES:Josef Knoff, pro seWilliam Blake, Esq., for DefendantISSUE: Can Defendant apply a previously awarded credit of overpaid temporary total disability benefits against a new claim for temporary total disability benefits? FINDINGS OF FACT: I take judicial notice of the Commissioner's prior decision in this claim, Joe Knoff v. Joe Knoff Illuminating, Opinion No. 39-05WC (July 12, 2005). In addition, the following facts are undisputed: 1. Claimant suffered a work-related injury to his neck in February 2000. Thereafter, Defendant paid temporary total disability benefits until March 2001, at which point the Department approved its discontinuance. 2. In April 2003 Claimant suffered a recurrence of his neck pain and requested that Defendant reinstate temporary total disability benefits. Defendant agreed to do so on a voluntary, without prejudice basis. Thereafter, it paid weekly benefits at the maximum compensation rate until September 2004. Payments during this period totaled approximately $63,700.00. 3. In September 2004 Defendant filed a Notice of Intention to Discontinue Benefits (Form 27), which the Department approved. In the notice, Defendant listed two grounds for terminating temporary disability benefits. One of the grounds it alleged was that the income Claimant had received during the twelve weeks preceding the April 2003 recurrence constituted profits from the sale of his business rather than wages earned during that period. As such, Defendant asserted, Claimant had not suffered any wage loss and therefore was not entitled to temporary total disability benefits. 4. Claimant appealed Defendant's discontinuance. After considering the evidence, the Commissioner ruled in Defendant's favor. Joe Knoff v. Joe Knoff Illuminating, Opinion No. 39-05WC (July 12, 2005). It thus determined that the benefits Defendant had paid from April 2003 through September 2004 in fact had not been owed. 5. Recognizing that Defendant's payments during the period in question had been made voluntarily and...