Bishop v. Town of Barre
Vermont Supreme Court
442 A.2d 50 (1982)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
In October of 1973, Leroy Bishop (plaintiff) sustained a work-related back injury while employed by the Town of Barre (the town) (defendant). Bishop worked for the town on and off between 1973 and October of 1977, when he stopped working entirely. Bishop received temporary-total-disability benefits from the town until January of 1979, when the town claimed that Bishop had reached the end of his healing process. Bishop then sought permanent-disability and vocational-rehabilitation benefits. At a hearing before the Vermont Commissioner of Labor and Industry, the commissioner heard medical testimony that Bishop’s back impairment had reached maximum improvement. Bishop’s impairment was assessed at a 35 to 40 percent impairment of his spine and a 20 percent impairment to his whole person. Bishop also presented evidence that given his age, training, and educational background, he would not be able to work again. The commissioner awarded Bishop 66 weeks of permanent-partial-disability benefits, calculated based on the 20 percent impairment to Bishop’s whole person. The commissioner’s award did not address Bishop’s arguments concerning his age, training, and education. Bishop appealed the commissioner’s decision in state superior court. The court certified questions to the Vermont Supreme Court about whether the commissioner erred in calculating Bishop’s permanent-partial-disability benefits.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hill, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.