by KPMLAW | Jun 14, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
Written by Rachel Riordan, Esq. Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning. In other cases, the words of a statute are vague enough to allow a Deputy Commissioner to infer his or her own interpretation of the meaning of words. In Roberson v. Peninsula Auto Painting, Jurisdiction Claim No. 1353553 (April 28, 2016), the Commission addressed the claimant’s request for a hand brake for his motorcycle. The claimant sustained a compensable right knee injury which, unfortunately, developed an infection requiring an above-the-knee amputation. The claimant requested payment for the modification of his motorcycle. Virginia Code Section 65.2-603 addresses the defendants’ responsibility for medical equipment and modifications. The statute includes modifications to the claimant’s home and automobile up to $42,000.00 per accident. Pertinent to the statutory dispute in Roberson, it provides for “modifications to or equipment for the employee’s automobile…” The Deputy Commissioner, in his ruling, acknowledged that a motorcycle is not precisely an automobile, but it serves the same purpose and is an automated means of transportation. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner believed the term “automobile” was vague and it could reasonably be interpreted to be any automated means of transportation, including a motorcycle. The employer argued the word “automobile” was not vague and a motorcycle is not an automobile. In other Virginia statutes, the term “motor vehicle” has been specifically defined as an “automobile, motorcycle, mobile home, truck, van or other vehicle operating on public highways and streets.” Virginia...
