 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wright v. Philip Electronics North America12/6/1996
1141 (1983). This bias for employees does not, ipso facto, mean that every case needs to be determined in favor of the employees. See, e.g., Morris v. Board of Education, 339 Md. 374, 384, 663 A.2d 578 (1995) (stating that construing the Act liberally in favor of employees "does not mandate the payment of benefits beyond that authorized by the Act's provisions and purposes"). It does mean, however, that when ambiguities arise in interpreting the Act, courts should side with the employees unless persuasive reasons exist to the contrary. See Lovelle t te, 297 Md. at 282.
One of the Act's "benevolent purposes" is to provide "day to day support to injured employees," Bayshore Indus., Inc. v. Ziats, 229 Md. 69, 77, 181 A.2d 652 (1962). See also Victor v. Proctor & Gamble, 318 Md. 624, 630, 569 A.2d 697 (1990) (quoting Beth. Shipyard v. Damasiewicz, 187 Md. 474, 480, 50 A.2d 799 (1947) (stating that the purpose of the Act is to compensate "for loss of earning capacity") (emphasis omitted). The compensatory nature of the disability benefits covered by the Act serves as one of its defining characteristics. See Md. Code, LE § 9-101(e). Workers' Compensation benefits, therefore, are paid out on a weekly disbursement schedule to reflect their compensatory nature, as opposed to a lump sum civil judgment. Richard P. Gilbert and Robert L. Humphreys, Jr., Maryland Workers' Compensation Handbook §§ 2.1, at 17.13 & 18 (2d ed. 1993, 1996 Cum. Supp.)
With these guidelines in mind, we now embark on our quest to determine which credit approach is consistent with the structure and policies of the Act.
A.
The "weekly credit" approach is consistent with the Act's benefit structure. It follows naturally that if the compensation structure is expressed in terms of "weeks," then any credit for previous payments should also be expressed by "weeks." Only by using this method is it possible to ensure that credit given for previous payments is consistent with the Act's policies and structure.
Both parties are correct in observing that neither this Court nor the Court of Appeals has previously discussed the issue in the statutory context of the case sub judice. The Court of Appeals and this Court, however, have had the opportunity to address the issue of credit for previous payments in other contexts of the Act. In those instances the courts applied the "weekly credit" approach.
In Stapleford v. Hyatt, 330 Md. 388, 624 A.2d 526 (1993), the Court of Appeals addressed whether the Commission correctly credited an employer for compensation payments made prior to the reopening of the employee's case because the employee's condition worsened. After examining analogous case law that discussed credit for previous payments, the Court of Appeals held that
the calculation of the "serious disability" benefits due a claimant after the worsening of condition has been determined on a reopening of his or her claim should be as follows. The number of weeks of compensation paid and payable under the revised disability assessment should be augmented by one-third, that number of weeks should be reduced by the weeks of compensation actually paid by the claimant under previous order of the Commission, and the balance of weeks of compensation should be awarded to the claimant at the "serious disability" rate.
Stapleford, 330 Md. at 402 (emphasis added). Similarly, this Court has used the "weekly credit" approach in other cases discussing the re-opening of workers' compensation cases because of worsening conditions. E.g., Schindele v. Nu-Car Carriers, Inc., 42 Md. App. 705, 402 A.2d 1307 (1979); Gordon v. Baltimore Spice Company, 17 Md. App. 300, 301 A.2d 41,
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.
|
|