This case involved an appeal from the Vermont Employment Security Board's denial of unemployment compensation benefits to claimant Barcomb under Title 21 of the Vermont statutes. Barcomb had left her job at a dress shop in Richford after her car became inoperable and she had no transportation from her home in Enosburg Falls; she had previously transferred there temporarily from an Enosburg location. The board found she left voluntarily without good cause attributable to the employer and was not available for work because she limited her job search to areas reachable on foot. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record contained credible evidence supporting the board's findings on both issues, that the relevant labor market extended beyond walking distance, and that employers are not responsible for providing transportation or that inability to arrange it qualifies a claimant for benefits.

labor & employment

The case involved a claim for unemployment compensation by a part-time magazine editor who regularly worked nine or ten days per month and had previously received benefits for the remaining weeks. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the Employment Security Board's denial of benefits after reviewing certified questions on the sufficiency of the evidence and statutory eligibility. The court reasoned that although the claimant literally met the definitions of partial unemployment in 21 V.S.A. § 1301(9), he did not satisfy the requirement under 21 V.S.A. § 1343 to be available for work, because he conditioned his availability on receiving higher pay and avoiding any interference with his existing job. This rendered him an employed person seeking better employment rather than involuntarily unemployed within the statute's purpose.

labor & employment

This case involves a dental malpractice claim where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant dentist negligently administered anesthesia by injecting near the mental foramen, injuring the inferior alveolar nerve and causing ongoing pain that required surgical intervention. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's case, finding insufficient evidence of negligence or causation. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plaintiff's evidence—including the defendant's own testimony that such an injection deviates from standard practice, the plaintiff's description of the injection site, and the treating physician's expert opinion linking the injury to the procedure—was sufficient to create factual issues for jury resolution on both negligence and causation. The court reasoned that conflicts in the evidence must be resolved by the jury rather than through a directed verdict.

torts & liabilityprocedure