 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martin v. Beverage Capital Corporation3/25/1999
initial receipt and continuation of workers' compensation death benefits. The first step is to determine whether the surviving spouse is entitled to receive benefits up to the $45,000 maximum. Step one is undertaken pursuant to 9-679, "Determination of dependency," which provides in part:
"Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, the Commission shall determine all questions of partial or total dependency in accordance with the facts of each case that existed:"
"(1) at the time of the occurrence of the accidental personal injury that caused the death of the covered employee." See also 9-681(a), (b), and (c). The second step comes into play after the initial $45,000 has been paid out. If the claimant petitions for further benefits, step two requires the surviving spouse to prove that he or she "continues to be wholly dependent" under 9-681(d). In general, 9-681, "Wholly dependent individuals," governs the payment of benefits to dependents following the death of a worker in the course of his or her employment. In particular, 9-681(d) states:
"If a surviving spouse who was wholly dependent at the time of death continues to be wholly dependent after $45,000 has been paid, the employer or its insurer shall continue to make payments to the surviving spouse at the same weekly rate during the total dependency of the surviving spouse."
The instant case concerns step two; specifically, whether the phrase "continues to be wholly dependent" refers to an ongoing dependency on the salary of the deceased worker at the time of his or her fatal injury (in essence, the standard of living experienced by the surviving spouse while the deceased employee was alive) or on the generally lesser workers' compensation death benefits. Most of this State's case law regarding this two-step process concerns step one, the determination of initial dependency. Only two reported Maryland appellate cases have looked at this second step of determining whether a claimant "continues to be wholly dependent." See Martin, supra, and Linder Crane, supra. While the "step one" cases are not directly on point with the particular issue in this appeal, they provide important guidance as to whether "continues to be wholly dependent" in 9-681(d), step two, refers to an ongoing dependency on the deceased spouse's salary or on the benefits.
The standard of review for workers' compensation proceedings is found in 9-745, "Conduct of appeal proceedings." It provides in pertinent part:
"(b) Presumption and burden of proof. - In each court proceeding under this title:"
"(1) the decision of the Commission is presumed to be prima facie correct; and"
"(2) the party challenging the decision has the burden of proof."
"(c) Determination by court. - The court shall determine whether the Commission:"
"(1) justly considered all of the facts about the accidental personal injury ...;"
"(2) exceeded the powers granted to it under this title; or"
"(3) misconstrued the law and facts applicable in the case decided."
"(e) Disposition. - (1) If the court determines that the Commission acted within its powers and correctly construed the law and facts, the court shall confirm the decision of the Commission."
"(2) If the court determines that the Commission did not act within its powers or did not correctly construe the law and facts, the court shall reverse or modify the decision or remand the case to the Commission for further proceedings." (Emphasis added)."
Beyond the statutory language, further guidance of the standard of review may be found in Frank v. Baltimore County, 284
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|