 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Alexander v. Montgomery County5/9/1991
Charles Alexander, appellant, appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County denying his motion for a judgment N.O.V. He asks two questions:
1. Whether the lower court committed reversible error in not granting appellant's Motion for Judgment N.O.V. where there was legally insufficient evidence for the jury to find that appellant first reached maximum medical improvement on January 16, 1987, given the uncontroverted expert testimony of appellant's treating physician that appellant had first reached maximum medical improvement on February 28, 1983?
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by reading the portion of the Workers' Compensation Commission [order] pertaining to when benefits were to begin being paid given the Maryland case law which clearly and specifically prohibits the mentioning to juries of amounts or periods of payments in Workers' Compensation cases? (Emphasis in original)
We perceive no error and, so, affirm.
Appellant filed a claim with the Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission for an injury he sustained during the course of his employment with Montgomery County, Maryland, appellee. By order dated December 19, 1988, the Commission determined that he sustained 30 percent permanent partial disability, benefits for which were to be paid weekly, "beginning January 16, 1987." Aggrieved by both the determination of the nature and extent of permanent partial disability and of the timing of the payment of those benefits, appellant appealed to the circuit court. The appeal was heard by a jury, which affirmed the Commission's order as to when the payment of benefits was to begin. The jury returned a verdict, however, finding 50 percent disability, rather than the 30 percent found by the Commission. Still aggrieved by the jury's determination concerning the timing of the payment of benefits, appellant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. It is from the denial of that motion that he appeals.
1.
To establish both that his disability exceeded 30 percent and that he reached maximum medical improvement prior to January 16, 1987, appellant played the video tape deposition of his treating physician, Dr. Robert Viener. The following portion of that deposition is pertinent to the issue of when appellant first reached maximum medical improvement:
Q. Now, doctor, are you familiar with the term maximum medical improvement?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that a term used in orthopedic surgery?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what the term means?
A. Well, there are two meanings. One is that the patient has received care or treatment for a condition that has stabilized to the point where further interventional care is not necessary. He has reached a point or she has reached a point of stability in their disease and they have benefited maximally from their interventional medical care. That is my understanding.
Q. Doctor, based upon your education, your experience and your years of training, coupled with your examination of Mr. Alexander, the history given to you, the fact that he did not come to see you between February of and March of , your review of the x-rays and your evaluations of him, did you form an opinion within a reasonable degree of medical probability as to whether or not Mr. Alexander reached maximum medical improvement on February 29, 1983? Do you have such an opinion?
A. Well, as of February 28, 1983, I had advised the patient that I need not check him unless his symptoms warranted. I can only assume that because he apparently was
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.
|
|