21S-10WC. Franjo Baric v. Velan Valve Corporation.

Vermont Workers Compensation 2010. 21S-10WC. Franjo Baric v. Velan Valve Corporation Franjo Baric v. Velan Valve Corporation(August 5, 2010)STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOROpinion No. 21S-10WCBy: Sal Spinosa Hearing OfficerFor: Valerie Rickert Acting CommissionerState File No. Y-58658RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR STAYOn Cross Motions for Partial Summary Judgment, Claimant prevailed. He argued successfully that the Agreement for Temporary Total Disability Compensation (Form 21) executed by both parties and approved by the Department failed to include his wages from concurrent employment. The Commissioner deemed this to be a mutual mistake of fact and consequently invalidated the average weekly wage as stated on the approved Form 21. Pursuant to 21 V.S.A. §675(b), Defendant moves to stay the Commissioner's June 23, 2010 Order on the grounds that it has met the requirements for granting a stay as established by the Vermont Supreme Court in In re Insurance Services Office, Inc., 148 Vt. 634, 635 (1987). According to 21 V.S.A. §675(b), "[a]ny award or order of the commissioner shall be of full effect from issuance unless stayed by the commissioner, any appeal notwithstanding. . ." To prevail on a request for a stay, the moving party must demonstrate all of the following:
1.That it is likely to succeed on the merits;
2.That it will suffer irreparable injury if a stay is not granted;
3.That issuing the stay will not substantially harm the other party; and
4.That the best interests of the public will be served by issuing a stay.
In re Insurance Services Office, Inc., supra. As contemplated by the legislature, the granting of a stay must be the exception, not the rule. Bodwell v. Webster Corp., Opinion No. 62S-96WC (December 10, 1996). Applying this stringent standard, I find that Defendant has failed to establish its right to a stay. Most notably, in arguing that it is likely to succeed on the merits Defendant recites the same arguments it proposed in the original cross motions. Those arguments are no more...

To continue reading