Maryland Workers Compensation Lawyer Blog

A Baltimore City employee is not precluded from qualifying for line-of-duty disability if he or she has a preexisting medical or physical condition that contributes to his or her disability, according to a recent decision by Maryland's top court.

Sylvester Dorsey, a school police officer in Baltimore City, was injured in a violent altercation with a student's parent in August 2007. Dorsey's back was injured as a result. Although he returned to light work duty a few weeks later, he was unable, however, to return to full work duty. The City of Baltimore terminated his employment on January 17, 2009. Dorsey then filed an application for line-of-duty disability retirement with the Employment Retirement System of the City of Baltimore (ERS).

Baltimore City Code, Article 22, lays out the eligibility requirements for certain employees of the city of Baltimore to receive line-of-duty disability retirement benefits. That section requires a claimant seeking benefits to prove that he or she sustained at least a "50% anatomical loss of the use of any 1 or at least a 25% or more anatomical loss of each of 2 or more" enumerated body parts. The loss of use must be "the direct result of bodily injury through an accident independent of all other causes and independent of any preexisting physical or medical conditions, job-related or otherwise, occurring while in the actual performance of duty with the City at a definite time and place, without willful negligence on the part of the member."

Continue reading "Preexisting Condition Does Not Disqualify Baltimore City Employees Seeking Line-of-Duty Disability" »

An employee's firing does not bar workers' compensation benefits if the claimant's evidence demonstrates that his or her disability caused the subsequent inability to find work, the Court of Special Appeals has ruled. The court's ruling stems from a lawsuit involving an injured worker receiving benefits who was fired after his assertion that he had not worked for a business he owned on the side was contradicted by video surveillance.

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) had appealed a Circuit Court for Prince George's County decision against it in a worker's compensation lawsuit. Robert Washington had been fired for claiming that he was unable to work after an injury to his back while employed as WMATA as a truck operator. However, video surveillance introduced at the Workers' Compensation Commission hearing to determine Washington's continued receipt of temporary total disability payments showed that he was working as a driver for his stretch limousine service two days before the hearing. Washington specifically denied that he had not worked those days. The Commission ruled against Washington, although Washington was later awarded permanent partial disability amounting to 22 percent industrial loss of use of his body because of the injury to his back.

Dissatisfied with the award, Washington asked for judicial review of the Commission's decision. WMATA did not challenge the award; but, before trial, WMATA asked the court to exclude all evidence Washington planned to present concerning his past and current income as the owner of the limousine service and his past or present loss of income resulting from his termination of employment with WMATA.

Continue reading "Worker's Firing Does Not Bar Workers' Compensation Benefits" »

The General Assembly has taken action on several Workers' Compensation bills in this year's session. Twenty-five bills dealing with Workers' Compensation matters were introduced. The bill calling for Commission decisions to be emailed will become law while another piece of proposed legislation -- that would expand punishment for employers who retaliate against workers who file workers' compensation claims -- has been referred for study. Many other bills probably won't make it out of this year's session.

Senate Bill 65 has been passed into law. The bill will become effective on Oct. 1, 2013. Copies of decisions by the Workers' Compensation Commission can now be sent by electronic means if the party or their attorney consents in writing. Under existing law, the decisions are sent by first-class mail. The Senate passed the bill by a 42-0 vote. The House passed the bill by a 131-0 vote.

Senate Bill 313/House Bill 370 has been passed into law. The bill alters the definition of "public safety employee" to include Anne Arundel County deputy sheriffs so as to establish eligibility for enhanced workers' compensation benefits for a permanent partial disability award. The bill will be applied prospectively. It becomes effective Oct. 1.

Continue reading "Maryland Legislature Takes Action on Several Workers' Compensation Bills" »

There are several bills dealing with workers' compensation matters in the General Assembly this year. A bill that would allow commission decisions to be emailed and a bill that would expand punishment for employers who retaliate against workers who file workers' compensation claims are making the rounds in Annapolis.

Under Senate Bill 65, copies of decisions by the Workers' Compensation Commission would be sent by electronic means if the party or their attorney consents in writing. Presently, 30 days after a hearing is held, WCC must send a copy by first-class mail. The Senate passed the bill by a 42-0 vote; it's now before the House. If passed into law, the bill would be become effective on October 1, 2013.

Senate Bills 263 deals with awards of attorney's fees and expenses in civil actions. The bill authorizes a court to award reasonable attorney's fees and expenses to a prevailing party in any civil action that has resulted in the enforcement of an important right that is secured by the Maryland Constitution, the Maryland Declaration of Rights, or a State law and affects the public interest. There is a companion bill in the House - HB 0130. If passed into law, the bill would become effective October 1.

Continue reading "Workers' Compensation Bills in the General Assembly" »

Maryland was the first state to put into place workers' compensation laws, passing such a law in the early 1900s. All Maryland employers are covered under workers' compensation insurance or have insurance in place to satisfy such claims. Injured workers seeking workers' compensation benefits have to show that the injury or illness is work-related. In most instances, if you were doing something for the benefit of your employer and you were injured or became ill as a result of that activity, then your injury or illness is work-related and you can receive benefits.

For allowed claims, benefits include medical treatment and expenses, disability payments and vocational rehabilitation.

Continue reading "How Ratings in Workers' Comp Cases Are Done" »

One of the scourges of the modern-day world is mold and the impact of exposure upon our health. In a recent court case, Maryland's Court of Special Appeals decided that a doctor's opinion that exposure to mold led to a raft of problems for workers in a water-damaged building was not scientifically valid under the standard presently used in the Maryland court system.

The lawsuit stemmed from complaints by several employees of the Baltimore Washington Conference of the United Methodist Church (BWCUMC) of an odor emanating from the walls. A maintenance crew investigated and discovered mold. As a result, several workers filed claims against BWCUMC and its insurer, Montgomery Mutual Insurance Company with the Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission. The workers said they suffered from "sick building syndrome" as a result of the exposure. While some of the workers' claims were disallowed, several were awarded partial compensation.

The workers appealed the commission's decisions. Before trial, the insurer filed a motion asking that the testimony of Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker be excluded because his methodologies and theories on the relationship between exposure to mold and human health effects were not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. Dr. Shoemaker is board-certified in family practice. His medical group has addressed the medical question of illness as a result of exposure in water-damaged buildings 4700 times since 1998.

Continue reading "Doctor's Testimony Ruled Not Scientifically Valid in Workers' Compensation Lawsuit Involving Mold" »

Pro footballers and workers' compensation claims were on the mind of the Court of Appeals in August. The state's top court released two decisions, two days apart, favoring claims made by two former Washington Redskins players.

In Pro-Football, Inc., t/a the Washington Redskins, et al. v. Thomas J. Tupa, Jr., the state's top court ruled that former Washington Redskins punter Tom Tupa can collect workers' compensation benefits in Maryland for a back injury that occurred at FedEx Field during warm-ups before a pre-season game in August 2005.

There were two questions before the court: (1) whether the Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission should have exercised jurisdiction over the claim when the employment agreement contained a clause providing, among other things, that claims for workers' compensation benefits should be governed by Virginia law and that the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission should have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve such claims and (2) whether injuries occurring while playing and practicing professional football are "accidental injuries" and, as a result, compensable under the Maryland Workers' Compensation Act.

Continue reading "Washington Redskins Loses to Former Football Players in Workers' Compensation Decisions" »

On October 29, 2009, the Court of Special Appeals ruled, in the case of Este v. ISG Sparrows Point, LLC, that a steel worker's nine-day delay in notifying her employer of an on-the-job knee injury caused no prejudice and therefore, she was entitled to workers' compensation benefits.

At issue in this case is the interpretation of Section 9-704 of the Labor & Employment Article, which requires an employee who suffers a work injury to notify her employer of the injury within ten days. If the required notice, which may be given verbally or in writing, is not given within this proscribed period, the failure to give the notice may be excused and the employee may still have a compensable claim if the employer cannot produce evidence of actual prejudice from the delay in notification.

The Employer, Sparrows Point, claimed that Ms. Estes did not notify it of her injury until 19 days after the injury occurred, when she returned from a previously scheduled vacation. Sparrows Point argued that the nine day delay beyond the ten day requirement cause it prejudice because it could not begin an investigation of the accident or the worker's injuries. The Court disagreed, holding that the employer failed to offer any evidence of harm. The Court pointed to the fact that once the employer did have notice, no investigation was undertaken, nor was the injured worker examined by it's physician until months after the incident, therefore, it was not prejudiced by the delay in notification.

It is important to understand and comply with Maryland's worker's compensation laws. The attorneys at Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz, L.L.C., understand the law and will work diligently to protect the rights of injured workers. If you have suffered an injury on the job, contact Valerie A. Grove to discuss your case.

When an injury occurs at work, an insurance company may pay your medical bills or lost time without a workers' compensation claim having been filed with the Workers' Compensation Commission. Therefore, the question that is frequently asked, is why should an injured worker file a claim with the Workers' Compensation Commission. The answer to this question lies more in the future then the present.

Under Maryland law, once a claim is filed with the Workers' Compensation Commission (as opposed to the filing of a claim with the insurance company), and it is accepted as compensable, an injured worker has the right to lifetime medical treatment at the expense of the employer/insurer so long as the treatment is reasonable, necessary and related to your accident at work. Furthermore, this right to medical treatment continues even if you stop working for the employer who employed you at the time of the accident or even if you simply retire.

In addition to the right to medical treatment, once you are discharged from medical treatment as a result of your accident, you may be entitled to receive a monetary award for any permanent disability you sustain as a result of your accident.  You may be eligible for this benefit regardless of the fact that you return to the same job that you were performing prior to your injury.

Additionally, even if you have no permanent disability as a result of your injury, but you do have some type of scarring, you are entitled to a monetary award for the permanent scarring.

Most important however, is that to be guaranteed the benefits discussed, an employee's claim form must be filed with the Workers' Compensation Commission within two years from the date of your accident (with some limited exceptions) or you will forever lose your right to claim workers' compensation benefits.

Clearly the process of filing a workers' compensation claim is a complicated legal matter that is substantially easier with the assistance of an attorney who has experience in this area of law.

Accordingly, if you have been injured at work, please contact Mr. Horowitz who has been practicing workers' compensation law since 1982. 

Mr. Horowitz may be reached by telephone at 800-895-5333, 410-234-0100 or via e-mail at jhorowitzesq@aol.com.