 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Means v. Baltimore County3/4/1997
Martinez v. University of California, 93 N.M. 455, 601 P.2d 425, 426 (N.M. 1979); Pulley v. City of Durham, 121 N.C. App. 688, 468 S.E.2d 506, 510 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996); James v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 290 Ore. 343, 624 P.2d 565, 568 (Or. 1981); Gatlin v. City of Knoxville, 822 S.W.2d 587, 590 (Tenn. 1991); see O'Loughlin v. Circle A. Constr., 112 Idaho 1048, 739 P.2d 347, 353 (Idaho 1987).
We stress that we do not today hold that Means's alleged PTSD is necessarily compensable as an occupational disease. We hold only that if the claimant can successfully prove that PTSD meets the statutory requirements, PTSD is not as a matter of law excluded from compensable occupational diseases and that the non-physical nature of Means's claim does not per se exclude her from coverage under the Act. Means must prove that she contracted PTSD "as the result of and in the course of employment." § 9-101(g). Furthermore, she must prove that the mental illness she suffers is due to the nature of a paramedic's job and that employment as a paramedic entails the hazard of developing PTSD. § 9-502(d)(1)(i).
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY REVERSED. CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. COSTS TO BE PAID BY BALTIMORE COUNTY.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|