Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Central Vermont Medical Center (CVMC) submitted its proposed budget for fiscal year 2025, seeking an 11.9% increase in net patient service revenue (NPR) and a 5.5% increase in commercial rates, both of which exceeded the benchmarks set by the Green Mountain Care Board. The Board’s benchmarks, established in its annual guidance, were 3.5% for NPR growth and 3.4% for commercial rate growth. The Board required hospitals exceeding these benchmarks to provide credible justification, such as evidence of improved access or quality of care. CVMC’s submission was reviewed through hearings and public comment, during which the Board found that CVMC’s justifications were insufficient, particularly regarding efficiency, productivity, and cost containment.The Green Mountain Care Board, after considering the evidence and statutory obligations, modified CVMC’s budget, allowing a 6% NPR growth and a 3.4% commercial rate increase. The Board found that CVMC could achieve financial sustainability through cost reductions and improved productivity rather than higher price increases. The Board imposed specific terms and conditions on the budget, emphasizing the need for efficient operations and balancing financial needs with statewide health care affordability and access.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the Board’s decision under a deferential standard, presuming the Board’s actions valid unless shown otherwise by clear and convincing evidence. The Court rejected CVMC’s arguments that the Board acted with unfettered discretion, violated procedural due process, or was required to regulate on a per-capita basis. The Court found that the Board’s process was guided by statutory standards, rules, and annual guidance, and that CVMC had adequate notice and opportunity to participate. The Supreme Court of Vermont affirmed the Board’s decision. View "In re Central Vermont Medical Center Fiscal Year 2025" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with first-degree murder of his wife and second-degree attempted murder of his mother-in-law after a violent attack with a meat cleaver in October 2017. Following his arrest, he was evaluated by multiple mental health experts, all of whom opined that he was legally insane at the time of the offenses. The initial prosecution was dismissed without prejudice by the Chittenden County State’s Attorney, who concluded there was insufficient evidence to rebut the insanity defense. After the defendant was released from psychiatric care, the Vermont Attorney General refiled the same charges.In the Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Criminal Division, the defendant moved to dismiss the renewed charges, arguing that the prior dismissal barred further prosecution under principles of collateral estoppel and judicial admissions, and that the Attorney General lacked authority to refile. The trial court denied these motions, finding that dismissal without prejudice did not constitute a final judgment on the merits and did not preclude reprosecution. The case proceeded to trial, where the defendant raised an insanity defense, but the jury convicted him on both counts.On appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court, the defendant raised five claims: (1) the prior dismissal barred the second prosecution; (2) his rights to a public trial and to participate in his defense were infringed; (3) the jury instructions were confusing and incomplete; (4) the court failed to protect jury impartiality by allowing unsupervised access to a graphic video; and (5) the court did not ensure competent language interpretation. The Vermont Supreme Court held that the Attorney General had authority to refile charges, that dismissal without prejudice did not bar reprosecution, and that collateral estoppel did not apply. The Court found no reversible error in the conduct of jury selection, jury instructions, video access, or interpretation services, and affirmed the convictions. View "State v. Gurung" on Justia Law

The State of Vermont brought a lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc. and its subsidiary Instagram, LLC, alleging violations of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act (VCPA). The State claimed that Meta intentionally designed Instagram to be addictive to teenagers, prioritized increased user engagement for advertising revenue despite known negative effects on teens, and misled consumers about the platform’s safety by downplaying or withholding internal research. Meta, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California, operates Instagram nationwide, including in Vermont, where tens of thousands of teens and young adults use the platform daily. Meta collects user data in exchange for access to Instagram and sells targeted advertising to Vermont businesses, specifically aiming at Vermont teens.Meta moved to dismiss the complaint in the Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division, arguing that Vermont lacked personal jurisdiction over it. The court denied the motion, finding that Meta’s contracts with Vermont users, targeted advertising sales to Vermont businesses, and research on Vermont teen engagement established sufficient contacts with the state. The court concluded these activities were sufficiently related to the State’s claims and that exercising jurisdiction would not be unfair. Meta sought and was granted interlocutory appeal on the jurisdictional issue.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Court held that Meta’s continuous and deliberate exploitation of the Vermont market—through user agreements, targeted advertising, and research on Vermont users—constituted purposeful availment sufficient for specific personal jurisdiction. The Court further held that the State’s claims arose out of or related to these contacts, as the alleged harm occurred in Vermont and was connected to Meta’s business activities there. The Court concluded that exercising jurisdiction over Meta in this case comports with due process and affirmed the denial of Meta’s motion to dismiss. View "State v. Meta Platforms, Inc." on Justia Law

A general contractor was hired to oversee the construction of a hotel in Vermont and subcontracted with a firm to install metal siding panels manufactured by a third party. The subcontractor relied on installation instructions available on the manufacturer’s website, which did not specify the use of a splice plate to connect the panels. The panels were installed without splice plates, and after construction, the panels began to detach from the building, causing some to fall and damage nearby property. The contractor later discovered that the manufacturer had created an instruction sheet in 2006 recommending splice plates, but this information was not publicly available at the time of installation.The contractor initially sued the installer for breach of contract, warranty, and negligence in the Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division. The complaint was later amended to add a product liability claim against the manufacturer. After further discovery, the contractor sought to amend the complaint a third time to add new claims against the manufacturer, arguing that new evidence justified the amendment. The trial court denied this motion, citing undue delay and prejudice to the manufacturer, and granted summary judgment to the manufacturer on the product liability claim and on a crossclaim for implied indemnity brought by the installer, finding both barred by the economic-loss rule.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decisions. The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the third motion to amend due to undue delay and prejudice. It also held that the economic-loss rule barred the contractor’s product liability claim, as neither the “other-property” nor “special-relationship” exceptions applied. Finally, the Court found the contractor lacked standing to appeal the summary judgment on the installer’s implied indemnity claim. View "PeakCM, LLC v. Mountainview Metal Systems, LLC" on Justia Law

A childcare provider operating two centers in Vermont participated in the federal Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), which reimburses centers for meals provided to children if certain regulatory requirements are met. The provider had previously been cited for noncompliance in 2019, but the matter was resolved after corrective action. In 2022, the Vermont Agency of Education (AOE) again found serious deficiencies, including inadequate recordkeeping, improper meal claims, and failure to monitor facilities. The provider submitted a corrective-action plan, and AOE initially determined the deficiencies were fully and permanently corrected. However, a subsequent unannounced review in 2023 revealed recurring deficiencies, such as missing enrollment forms, incorrect eligibility determinations, and incomplete documentation.Following these findings, AOE issued a notice proposing to terminate the provider’s participation in CACFP and to disqualify the provider and two employees from future participation. The provider requested an administrative review. At the hearing, the provider acknowledged some paperwork was not in compliance but argued the errors were minor and unintentional. Due to time constraints, the hearing officer allowed both parties to submit post-hearing written arguments and documentation, to which the provider did not initially object but later challenged as a violation of due process and agency procedures.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case after the hearing officer affirmed AOE’s decision to terminate and disqualify the provider. The Court held that the hearing officer applied the correct legal standard and that the record supported the findings of persistent serious deficiencies. The Court also determined that the provider had not properly preserved its objection to post-hearing submissions and, regardless, was not prejudiced by the procedure. The Court affirmed the termination and disqualification from the CACFP. View "In re Butterfly Kisses Child Care Center, Inc." on Justia Law

An elderly man with multiple health conditions, including Parkinson’s disease and COPD, was admitted to a hospital due to worsening symptoms and hallucinations. During his stay, he became agitated and aggressive, prompting hospital staff to administer Zyprexa, a chemical restraint, after obtaining consent from his daughter. The medication was ordered as “every 4 hours,” but there was disagreement over whether this meant scheduled or as-needed administration. The patient received two doses, after which he suffered respiratory distress, was transferred to another hospital, and died a few days later from septic shock related to aspiration pneumonia.The Superior Court, Addison Unit, Civil Division, presided over a jury trial in August 2023. Both parties presented expert testimony on the standard of care for chemical restraints, and the plaintiff also introduced the hospital’s policy. The jury was asked whether the plaintiff had proven the applicable standard of care and answered “no.” As a result, the jury did not consider whether the standard was breached, causation, or damages. The plaintiff moved for a new trial under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 59, arguing that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the evidence was conflicting and that the jury’s verdict was not clearly wrong or unjust.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. The Court held that the trial court acted within its discretion, as the evidence regarding the applicable standard of care was conflicting and not so clear as to require overturning the jury’s verdict. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a new trial. View "Watrous v. Porter Medical Center" on Justia Law

The case concerns a petitioner who was substantiated by the Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF) for placing a child, L.M., at risk of sexual harm. The petitioner had a prior substantiation in 2006 for sexually abusing a minor and a 2019 conviction for open and gross lewdness involving an adult. In 2020, the petitioner and his husband, who had previously been substantiated as a minor, began babysitting L.M., an eight-year-old transgender boy. L.M. would sometimes stay overnight at their apartment, where another adult friend was also present. The petitioner did not inform his probation officer about this arrangement, despite probation conditions restricting his contact with minors. DCF received a report and, after investigation, substantiated the petitioner for risk of sexual harm to L.M.After the substantiation, the petitioner requested review. The Commissioner’s Registry Review Unit upheld the substantiation, and the petitioner appealed to the Human Services Board. A hearing officer recommended reversing the substantiation, but the Board adopted the hearing officer’s factual findings and nonetheless affirmed the substantiation, reasoning that the petitioner’s access to L.M., his prior record, lack of sex-offender treatment, and dishonesty during the investigation supported a finding of risk. The Board found that the petitioner had regular and ongoing access to L.M., including overnight stays, and that the presence of other adults did not amount to constant supervision.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the Board’s decision for abuse of discretion. The Court held that the Board reasonably inferred risk of harm based on the petitioner’s access to L.M., prior substantiation, and other factors. The Court rejected arguments that DCF was required to relitigate the 2006 substantiation or that DCF’s policies were inconsistent with statutory requirements. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board’s decision upholding the substantiation. View "In re Appeal of S.C.-M." on Justia Law

A hospital submitted its proposed budget for the upcoming fiscal year, requesting a 6.1% increase in net patient revenue (NPR) and a 2.8% increase in commercial negotiated rates. The hospital justified its request by citing increased patient volume and efforts to reduce wait times. The Green Mountain Care Board, which regulates hospital budgets in Vermont, had previously issued guidance setting a 3.5% benchmark for NPR growth and a 3.4% benchmark for commercial rate increases, requiring hospitals to justify any requests above these benchmarks.After reviewing the hospital’s proposal, the Green Mountain Care Board approved a 5.0% NPR increase—higher than the benchmark but lower than requested—citing the hospital’s strong financial health and the need to balance access to care with cost containment. The Board also approved the requested 2.8% commercial rate increase but included a footnote reducing this increase to 1.2% due to a prior budget overage, referencing a separate budget-enforcement order. The hospital appealed the Board’s decision to the Vermont Supreme Court, arguing that the Board’s NPR decision was arbitrary and that the reduction in the commercial rate increase violated procedural requirements under the Vermont Administrative Procedure Act (VAPA).The Vermont Supreme Court held that the Board had adequately explained its decision to approve a 5.0% NPR increase and acted within its discretion, given the statutory mandate to balance cost control and access to care. However, the Court struck the footnote reducing the commercial rate increase to 1.2%, because the underlying budget-enforcement order had been reversed by the Vermont Superior Court for failure to follow VAPA procedures and was no longer valid. The Supreme Court otherwise affirmed the Board’s decision. View "In re Rutland Regional Medical Center Fiscal Year 2025" on Justia Law

A property owner challenged the tax assessment of its facility in Salisbury, Vermont, for the 2023-2024 tax year. After a grievance hearing attended by both the property owner and its attorney, the town listers denied the grievance and mailed the decision by certified mail to the property owner’s address of record. The property owner received the notice twelve days before the deadline to appeal but did not forward it to its attorney until after the appeal period had expired. The attorney then filed an appeal to the Board of Civil Authority (BCA), which was rejected as untimely.The property owner appealed to the Vermont Superior Court, Addison Unit, Civil Division, arguing that the town violated its procedural due process rights by failing to send notice of the listers’ decision to both the property owner and its attorney. The Superior Court allowed the property owner to amend its complaint and ultimately granted summary judgment in its favor, relying on Perry v. Department of Employment & Training, which required notice to both a claimant and their attorney in the context of unemployment benefits. The court ordered the BCA to hear the untimely appeal.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that, in the context of property tax grievances, procedural due process does not require notice to be mailed to both the taxpayer and the taxpayer’s counsel. The Court distinguished Perry as limited to unemployment-benefit proceedings and found that the statutory scheme for property tax appeals only requires notice to the taxpayer. Because the property owner received actual notice and had sufficient time to appeal, the Court concluded that due process was satisfied. The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s decision and instructed that summary judgment be entered for the Town of Salisbury. View "Salisbury AD 1, LLC v. Town of Salisbury" on Justia Law

A woman and her former husband divorced in 2011, entering into a detailed stipulation that was incorporated into a final divorce order by the Vermont family division. The order awarded her sole legal parental rights for their three minor children and required the husband to pay spousal maintenance for a set period. It also required him to maintain a $400,000 life insurance policy naming her as the sole beneficiary for at least fifteen years or until his maintenance obligation was paid in full, whichever was later. After remarrying, the husband obtained new life insurance policies naming his new wife as beneficiary and assigned part of one policy to a lender as collateral. Upon his death, the ex-wife discovered she was not a beneficiary on these policies and sued, seeking the insurance proceeds based on the divorce order.The Vermont Superior Court, Bennington Unit, Civil Division, denied the ex-wife’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings to the defendants. The court found that Vermont law prohibited courts from ordering postmortem spousal maintenance or requiring life insurance to secure such maintenance, and concluded the life-insurance provision in the divorce order was invalid and unenforceable. The court ordered the insurance proceeds to be distributed to the new wife and the lender, and granted interpleader relief to one insurer.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that Vermont law recognizes an equitable cause of action to recover life insurance proceeds based on a divorce order, and that parties may agree to secure maintenance with life insurance, even if the court could not impose such a requirement unilaterally. The Court affirmed the interpleader relief but reversed the remainder of the judgment, remanding for further proceedings to determine the ex-wife’s equitable entitlement to the insurance proceeds and the priority of competing claims. View "diMonda v. Lincoln National Corp." on Justia Law