32-11WC. Benjamin Bacon v. Gerald E Morrissey Inc.

• Court: Vermont

Vermont Workers Compensation 2011. 32-11WC. Benjamin Bacon v. Gerald E Morrissey Inc Benjamin Bacon v. Gerald E Morrissey Inc(October 12, 2011)STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOROpinion No. 32-11WCBy: Phyllis Phillips, Esq. Hearing OfficerFor: Anne M. Noonan CommissionerState File No. 83-20669RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTThis claim has a long and convoluted history. Claimant originally was injured in 1981 when a wooden plank fell from some scaffolding and hit him on the head. In 1983 he began exhibiting symptoms indicative of a possible seizure disorder, which he contended were causally related to his 1981 injury. Following a formal hearing in 1985, the Commissioner determined that Claimant likely was suffering from post-concussive syndrome. Defendant was ordered to pay both medical and indemnity benefits causally related to that condition. Bacon v. GeraldE. Morrissey, Opinion No. 6-85WC (July 26, 1985). Claimant has continued to treat for seizure-like episodes since 1983, and at various times has sought additional workers' compensation benefits referable to them. In December 2002 he claimed entitlement to temporary total disability benefits on the grounds that his condition was precluding him from continuing to work as a self-employed carpenter. He also claimed entitlement to medical benefits for treatment of liver damage that he alleged had resulted from his use of Tegretol, a seizure control medication, from the mid-1980's until 1990. Last, he claimed that Defendant had failed to pay various medical bills. Despite prodding from both the Department and Defendant, Claimant repeatedly failed to produce the evidence necessary to support his claims for additional benefits. Time and again, he was advised to produce income tax records documenting his wages for the twelve weeks preceding his alleged disability, but did not do so. He ignored repeated requests from Defendant to schedule his deposition. He failed to sign and return a medical authorization so that Defendant could obtain and review his pertinent records. As a consequence of these repeated failures, in August 2006 the Department cancelled the formal hearing that had been scheduled on the merits of his claim. Claimant resurrected his claim in early 2010. He now seeks essentially the same benefits to which he claimed entitlement in 2002: (1)...