Chabot v. Raylar Limited Partnership, 022520 VTWC, 05-20WC

Case DateFebruary 25, 2020
CourtVermont
Dennis Chabot, Senior
v.
Raylar Limited Partnership d/b/a Howard Johnson Motor Lodge
Opinion No. 05-20WC
Vermont Workers Compensation Decisions
State of Vermont Department of Labor
February 25, 2020
         State File No. KK-408           Claimant, pro se.           Richard Windish, Esq., for Defendant.           Beth A. DeBernardi, Administrative Law Judge.          RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT           Michael A. Harrington, Interim Commissioner.          ISSUE PRESENTED:          Is Claimant’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits for alleged work-related asbestosis time-barred as a matter of law?          EXHIBITS:          Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts filed January 15, 2020          Defendant’s Exhibit A: Secretary of State’s listing for Raylar Limited Partnership          Defendant’s Exhibit B: Secretary of State’s listing for Rutland Management, Inc.          Defendant’s Exhibit C: Notice of Injury and Claim for Compensation (Form 5) filed December 22, 2017          Defendant’s Exhibit D: December 6, 2018 letter from the Department’s Specialist to Claimant and Hanover Insurance Company          Claimant’s Exhibit 1:1 Claimant’s December 7, 2018 revised claim narrative          Claimant’s Exhibit P1-P2: Social Security Administration’s documentation of Claimant’s wages earned from Defendant in 1989 and 1990          Claimant’s Exhibit P3: January 21, 2000 Vermont Department of Health engineer’s letter to the Rutland Howard Johnson Inn concerning asbestos          Claimant’s Exhibit P4: Record of OSHA’s December 17, 2000 amended penalty for failure to abate asbestos issued to an unnamed respondent          Claimant’s Exhibit P8-9: OSHA’s December 6, 1999 referral reports concerning asbestos at the Rutland Howard Johnson Inn          Claimant’s Exhibit P12A: September 13, 2017 medical record from Mark Jacob, MD, stating a diagnosis of asbestosis          FINDINGS OF FACT:          Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Claimant as the non-moving party, State v. Delaney, 157 Vt. 247, 252 (1991), I find the following facts:
1. Claimant was an employee of Defendant, the operator of the former Rutland Howard Johnson’s Motor Lodge, from 1981 until April or May of 1990. Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶¶ 1-2; Claimant’s Exhibit 1; Claimant’s Exhibit P1-P2.
2. Claimant was diagnosed with asbestosis on September 13, 2017. Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 3; Claimant’s Exhibit P12A.
3. On December 22, 2017, Claimant filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits for asbestosis allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos in Defendant’s workplace. Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 4; Defendant’s Exhibit C, Notice of Injury and Claim for Compensation (Form 5).
         CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:          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, such that...

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