Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Smiley v. State

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided March 6, 2015No. 2013-257Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Robinson, J.,

¶ 38. concurring and dissenting. I note at the outset that this conversation necessarily takes place in something of a time warp. The majority’s opinion begins with the premise that a claim for permanent partial disability benefits is subject to its own statute of limitations, even if the claimant has initiated a claim for the underlying work-related injury within the applicable limitations period. As the majority acknowledges, ante, ¶ 28 n.7, the Legislature amended the law effective May 26, 2004, and made it clear that, while a claimant’s initiation of workers’ compensation…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Wood v. Fletcher Allen Health CareSupreme Court of Vermont · 1999
  2. Cyr v. McDERMOTT'S, INC.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2010
  3. Longe v. Boise Cascade Corp.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2000
  4. Carter v. Fred's Plumbing & Heating, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2002
  5. Merrill v. University of VermontSupreme Court of Vermont · 1974

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API