 
|
|
|
 |
||||
|
|
Workers' Compensation & Employers' Liability Articles Archive
Recent CasesSeveral cases decided by Maryland's appellate courts over the last few months have addressed issues relevant to the workers' compensation community. These cases include:  Burden Of Proof On Appeal:Baltimore County v. Kelly III, 391 Md. 64 (February 7, 2006) An employer appealing a workers' compensation award of medical treatment and causation bears the burden of showing the injury is not work related. The Court affirmed the reversal below of the granting of the employer's Motion for Summary Judgment. The claimant had a pre-existing back problem that was aggravated at work. He later has disc surgery. The employer alleged that the surgery was not work-related. The Commission disagreed and awarded benefits. The employer appealed to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, alleging that the case involved a complicated medical question and when the claimant failed to introduce any evidence on causation, the employer moved for summary judgment. The Circuit Court granted the motion, but the Court of Special Appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Special Appeals, stating that, "given the Commission's decision in favor of Kelly, the burden of proof rested with the County in the Circuit Court." This burden required that the employer produce evidence regarding the lack of causation between the motor vehicle accident and the back surgery. The claimant, therefore, was not required, at that stage of the Circuit Court proceedings, to produce medical evidence affirmatively establishing causation. Theft Conviction Not Enough To Bar Permanency:Kelly v. Consolidated Delivery Co., 166 Md. App. 178 (December 6, 2005). The claimant was awarded temporary total benefits by the Commission and, while receiving benefits, he got a job, but did not tell anyone and continued collecting benefits. Section 9-1106(a) prohibits a claimant from knowingly collecting benefits by "fraudulent misrepresentation" and §9-1106(b) provides that a person convicted of fraudulent misrepresentation may not receive compensation under the workers' compensation law. The insurer applied for a statement of charges against the claimant in the District Court, and that Court found him guilty of theft and sentenced him to one year and one day imprisonment, all suspended in favor of probation and ordered him to pay restitution. The state nol prossed the charge of fraud. The claimant than applied for permanency benefits. The employer argued that, under §9-1106(b), he should not get benefits. The claimant argued he was never convicted of fraud, so §9-1106(b) could not apply. The Commission denied the claimant benefits for permanent partial disability, which was affirmed by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. The claimant appealed to the Court of Special Appeals on the issue of whether he was entitled to pursue his claim for permanent partial disability benefits. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the Circuit Court and the Commission and found he could receive permanency benefits. The Court held that a claimant must be convicted of a fraud charge. Since the claimant was never convicted of fraud, only theft, the Commission could not convict him and, therefore §9-1106(a) does not apply and does not preclude the claimant from collecting permanency benefits. Jurisdiction and "Regular" EmploymentHodgson v. Flippo, 164 Md. App. 263 (September 15, 2005). The claimant, a resident of Maryland who was employed by a construction company located in Maryland was principally assigned to work at District of Columbia job sites. In the year prior to his injury, he worked approximately 60% of the time in D.C. and only about 20% of his time in Maryland. He was injured while working in the District of Columbia. He filed a claim for his injuries with both the Maryland Commission and the District of Colombia Commission. The employer argued that the Maryland Commission did not have jurisdiction over the claim, because his injury occurred in the District of Columbia and the claimant has been working there the majority of time in the year preceding the injury. The Maryland Commission concluded that it did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the claim. The Circuit Court for Prince George's County agreed. The claimant appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed the lower court and the Commission. The Court held to be eligible for workers' compensation benefits in Maryland, a claimant must be a covered employee under L.E. §9-203(a) (2). To be a covered employee under L.E. §9-203(a) (2), a claimant must be "regularly" employed within the State while working outside of the State on a casual, incidental or occasional basis. The Court used a comparative test to determine whether a claimant is "regularly" employed in Maryland. The dispositive factor in that determination is whether the employment in Maryland is "regular" when compared to the employment outside of Maryland. The Court found that the claimant's work in Maryland was "casual, incidental, or occasional" to his work in the District of Columbia and, therefore, Maryland had no jurisdiction over his claim. Illegal Aliens Are Covered In MarylandDesign Kitchen and Baths v. Lagos, 388 Md. 718 (September 12, 2005). The Court of Appeals ruled that an undocumented worker injured in the course of employment is a "covered employee" under Maryland law and eligible to receive workers' compensation benefits. The employee was an illegal alien who sustained a work-related injury. The Commission found in favor of the claimant and the employer and insurer appealed to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. Each party filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Circuit Court granted the claimant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The employer and insurer appealed. The employer and insurer's position was that the claimant's undocumented alien status prohibited legal employment and precluded him from being able to prove that he was a covered employee. In addition, the employer and insurer argued that under, the Workers' Compensation Act, coverage must arise from a contract of employment and that a contract with an illegal alien is illegal and cannot constitute a "contract of service." The Court disagreed and found the claimant to be a "covered employee" and entitled to benefits. |
|||
|
||||
Top
