 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Belcher v. T. Rowe Price Foundation Inc.3/25/1993
f and in the course of employment?
2. Is the disability of the employee the result of an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment?
The Commission found that
the claimant did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment as alleged to have occurred on 11 April 1989; and finds that the disability of the claimant is not the result of the alleged accidental injury. . . .
The Commission disallowed Belcher's claim.
B
The Commission's disallowance of Belcher's claim prompted her appeal to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. She asserted that the holdings of the Commission were erroneous. Each side filed a motion for summary judgment. After hearing arguments from counsel at the hearing on the motions, the judge found it
hard to believe with all the Workmen's Compensation cases that have passed through these courts and the courts of the State of Maryland, that there has not been a case that is on all fours with this. . . .
He thought that the issue presented was
whether or not a purely mental condition is compensable where there is no physical injury .
He deemed it to be "really a simple issue, but complicated to interpret. . . ." He suggested that " ne could argue either side of this . . . very comfortably, . . . as both [counsel]
have," and " ased on what I have read, the courts could go in either direction, quite honestly." He recognized that the Act is to be liberally construed under the law, but he warned, "liberal construction does not change the meaning of the words." He iterated: "There has not been a case such as this . . . when there is no medical treatment but purely mental treatment." He doubted that in such circumstances the Act permitted compensation. He opined that the Court of Special Appeals had so indicated in Le v. Federated Dep't Stores, 80 Md. App. 89, 560 A.2d 42(1989), but, he observed, the Court of Appeals has not spoken on the matter. He concluded:
"As I am bound by the law and not a law writer, I will [in accord with Le,] abide by what I believe the law is today. And for that reason [Belcher's] Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied. The [employer's] Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted."
It is apparent that the Commission as well as the circuit court relied on the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals in reaching its holdings. The case was argued at length at the hearing before the Commission and the hearing ended on these words by counsel for the employer: "I rely upon the Thach Le case." As far as the Commission and the circuit court were concerned, they were governed, in our silence on the matter, by the law announced in Le by the Court of Special Appeals.
III
The "Thach Le" case, Le v. Federated Dep't Stores, 80 Md. App. 89, 560 A.2d 42, to which the employer's counsel referred and the circuit court cited, was an action seeking damages for the torts of false arrest, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Circuit
Court for Montgomery County held that the exclusivity clause of the Workmen's Compensation Act precluded the action. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. The Court of Special Appeals reversed, but it did so for a reason not relied on by the circuit court.
The question in the view of the Court of Special Appeals was whether non-physical tortious acts committed against Thach Le by a fellow employee fell within the ambit of the then-sty
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|