Legal Opinion · Dissent

Brown v. W.T. Martin Plumbing & Heating, Inc.

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided June 21, 2013No. 2011-270Published

1Dissent

Dooley, J.,

¶ 37. dissenting. In decision after decision, we have held that our main goal in construing statutes is to implement the intent of the Legislature. In this case, the majority has construed a statute to weaken its central purpose to bring objectivity, consistency and predictability to the workers’ compensation impairment-determination process and the requirements of this process to the point where it is difficult to find any remaining point in having the statute. The majority reaches this conclusion by exploiting what it perceives as a loophole in the drafting of the statute. It is…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Redd v. Kansas Truck CenterSupreme Court of Kansas · 2010
  2. In re Appeal of CarrollSupreme Court of Vermont · 2007
  3. Westmoreland Regional Hospital v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  4. Appeal of RainvilleSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1999
  5. Tokico (USA), Inc. v. KellyKentucky Supreme Court · 2009

1 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