H-12794. Peters v. Bushey's Auto II.

• Court: Vermont

Vermont Workers Compensation 1996. H-12794. Peters v. Bushey's Auto II Jan 15, 1996File #: H-12794, F-21384By: Barbara H. Alsop Hearing Officer For: Mary S. HooperCommissionerRaymond Peters v. Bushey's Auto II et al.Ruling on Defendant Catamount Parts' Motion for Summary Judgment APPEARANCES Alan D. Overton, Esq., for the claimant Glen L. Yates, Jr., Esq., for the defendant Bushey's Auto II Eric A. Johnson, Esq., for the defendant Catamount Parts PROCEDURAL HISTORY After an informal conference was held by a Workers Compensation Specialist on July 27, 1995, at which all parties were present, an Interim Order was issued on September 22, 1995, ordering defendant Bushey's Auto II to pay indemnity and medical benefits to the claimant until either the claimant reached an end medical result or the parties received a formal hearing decision in the case. Thereafter, defendant Bushey's Auto II filed a Motion to Stay Interim Order, which was denied on October 26, 1995. Defendant Bushey's Auto II was again ordered to pay benefits within seven days. A pretrial conference was held on November 29, 1995, at which point Bushey's Auto II admitted that no payment had been made on the earlier orders. At the pretrial conference, the representative for Bushey's Auto II notified the Hearing Officer that the expert retained by Bushey's Auto II had determined that the incident that led to the claimant's physical disability was an aggravation within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act and that Bushey's claim against Catamount Parts hence was no longer alive. The carrier for Bushey's Auto II had previously filed a Form 27, Notice of Intent to Discontinue Payments, on November 27, 1995, citing as support for the notice Dr. Dorothy Ford's report in which the finding of aggravation had been made, as well as a letter from Dr. Ford indicating that there was no additional permanency attributable to the aggravation. At the pretrial conference, the Form 27 was orally rejected by the Hearing Officer as there was an outstanding issue of a psychiatric disability and no evidence that the claimant had reached an end medical result or had achieved any work capacity from that disability. Based on the representations from the attorney for Bushey's Auto II, the Hearing Officer allowed an oral motion for summary judgment made by the attorney...