Except as provided in subsection 618(b) and section 624 of this title, the rights and remedies granted by the provisions of this chapter to an employee
on account of a personal injury for which he or she is entitled to compensation under
the provisions of this chapter shall exclude all other rights and remedies of the
employee, the employee’s personal representatives, dependents, or next of kin, at
common law or otherwise on account of such injury. (Amended 1997, No. 19, § 2.)
Gallipo v. City of Rutland, 789 A.2d 942 (Vt. 2001). · cites it 6ד*225 §§ 49 fMt96 (VFEPA), is not barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act’s (WCA) exclusivity provision, 21 V.S.A. § 622; and (2) the Chief ..may be held personally liable under VFEPA because the municipal officer immunities law, 24 V.”
Wolfe v. Yudichak, 571 A.2d 592 (Vt. 1990). · cites it 12דSee 21 V.S.A. § 622. Because we find that plaintiff is not entitled to workers' compensation benefits, we reverse.”
Colwell v. Allstate Ins., 2003 VT 5 (Vt. 2003). · cites it 3דIn the Bonanno case, we conclude that self insurers must provide UIM coverage, and that 21 V.S.A. § 622, the exclusivity provision of Vermont’s workers’ compensation statute, does not bar the employee from seeking UIM benefits from his self-insured employer.”
Wentworth v. Crawford & Co., 807 A.2d 351 (Vt. 2002). · cites it 3דSee 21 V.S.A § 622. It reasoned that Crawford was hired by her employer after her compensable back injury, and therefore Wentworth’s remedies lie exclusively under the Act pursuant to 21 V.”
Derosia v. Book Press, Inc., 531 A.2d 905 (Vt. 1987). · cites it 5דLiberty’s argument raises issues of first impression in this jurisdiction requiring us to interpret both the exclusive remedy provision, 21 V.S.A. § 622, and the dual liability provision, 21 V.”
Derosia v. Duro Metal Prods. Co., 519 A.2d 601 (Vt. 1986). · cites it 8ד5(a): Does 21 V.S.A. Section 622 bar an action by an employee, who is entitled to workmen's compensation under 21 V.”
Welch v. Home Two, Inc., 783 A.2d 419 (Vt. 2000). · cites it 6דwas Norman Welch's statutory employer within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act, 21 V.S.A. §§ 622, 624 (the Act), and that plaintiffs' common law claims are therefore barred under the employer-immunity of the Act.”
Libercent v. Aldrich, 539 A.2d 981 (Vt. 1987). · cites it 3דOn December 19, 1983, defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment on two grounds: first, that the workers’ compensation benefits were his exclusive remedy under 21 V.S.A. § 622, and, second, that the action was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.”
Smith v. Desautels, 2008 VT 17 (Vt. 2008). · cites it 2ד21 V.S.A. § 622. Furthermore, at least initially, the worker has no way of knowing that an employer has failed to comply with its obligation to secure compensation through insurance or other means.”
Stamp Tech, Inc. v. Lydall/Thermal Acoustical, Inc., 2009 VT 91 (Vt. 2009). · cites it 2דFinally, nothing in the record suggests that plaintiff attempted to "game the system" by waiting to introduce Barroso's deposition until after summary judgment had been entered against it.”
Lydy v. Trustaff, Inc./Wausau Ins. Co., 2013 VT 44 (Vt. 2013). · cites it 2דVermont’s workers’ compensation law reflects a trade-off pursuant to which injured workers forfeit their common-law right to sue employers for negligence and the damages associated therewith, but are entitled to a remedy for work injuries independent of fault; employers, on the…”
Catherine Lyons v. Chittenden Cent. Supervisory Union, 185 A.3d 551 (Vt. 2018). · cites it 2דThe plurality’s employment determination may serve to benefit claimant in this instance but work a profound hardship on the next injured student teacher by barring a tort claim against the school district due to the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 21…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.