Until 1999, Vermont decided workers' compensation cases for asbestosis and mesothelioma under the Vermont Occupational Disease Act, which held that occupational diseases were only compensable under Vermont law if disablement due to the disease occurred within five years of the last exposure to asbestos. That law was repealed in 1999, when a statutory decision applied the discovery rule to cases of occupational disease. However, it has been applied in recent cases such as the one below.
2006 - Carter v. Fred's Plumbing & Heating, Inc: This 2006 decision on a matter before the Hearing Board of the Vermont Workers' Compensation Board illustrates some of the difficulties faced by those trying to file claims for compensation under Workers' Compensation rules. The plaintiff filed for workers' compensation benefits due to disablement by asbestosis, bringing a claim against Fred's Plumbing and Heating and against five insurance companies who insured the company at various points in time. The insurance companies filed for summary judgment based on the fact that the claim was time-barred by a limitation statute because the law that controlled the claim was the law in effect at the time of the plaintiff's last exposure to asbestos. That time was judged to be no later than 1981, and the law in effect at that time was the Vermont Occupational Disease Act. Under that law, in order to qualify for compensation an occupational disease must result "within five years of the last injurious exposure". The Workers' Compensation Board agreed, and the claim was dismissed with a summary judgment. The opinion was upheld on appeal.
That case also pointed out the importance of having the advice of an experienced Vermont mesothelioma lawyer who is knowledgeable about the various defendants and insurance companies who insured the defendants. Among the grounds considered in deciding summary dismissal was the question of which insurer was responsible for paying the claim. An experienced lawyer has the resources to research and learn which companies and insurers are the correct ones to be named in a claim.
2006 - Carter v. Fred's Plumbing & Heating, Inc: This 2006 decision on a matter before the Hearing Board of the Vermont Workers' Compensation Board illustrates some of the difficulties faced by those trying to file claims for compensation under Workers' Compensation rules. The plaintiff filed for workers' compensation benefits due to disablement by asbestosis, bringing a claim against Fred's Plumbing and Heating and against five insurance companies who insured the company at various points in time. The insurance companies filed for summary judgment based on the fact that the claim was time-barred by a limitation statute because the law that controlled the claim was the law in effect at the time of the plaintiff's last exposure to asbestos. That time was judged to be no later than 1981, and the law in effect at that time was the Vermont Occupational Disease Act. Under that law, in order to qualify for compensation an occupational disease must result "within five years of the last injurious exposure". The Workers' Compensation Board agreed, and the claim was dismissed with a summary judgment. The opinion was upheld on appeal.
That case also pointed out the importance of having the advice of an experienced Vermont mesothelioma lawyer who is knowledgeable about the various defendants and insurance companies who insured the defendants. Among the grounds considered in deciding summary dismissal was the question of which insurer was responsible for paying the claim. An experienced lawyer has the resources to research and learn which companies and insurers are the correct ones to be named in a claim.
