 |
 |
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
failure of some essential function of the body, as heart failure or paralysis, brought about by the exertion of the employee while engaged in the performance of his duties, or by the conditions of the employment. . . .
Id.
The Court in Sausser, 199 Md. at 520, 86 A.2d 94, spoke of an "accidental personal injury " in terms of "a physical injury. . . ." and in Greenwalt, 203 Md. at 318, 100 A.2d 804, the Court opined that the meaning of "accident" in Workmen's Compensation cases "includes any mishap which results in physical injury. . . ." Golombieski, 231 Md. at 129, 188 A.2d 923, citing to Schemmel and Zapf, pointed out that under the Act
the meaning of "accidental" has been extended to include the rupture of an aneurysm and other internal injuries in order to give the word a more liberal construction in harmony with the general intent of the law and make the injury compensable.
This Court has further held that symptoms of injury can follow the incident by some lapse of time and still be considered the natural result of an "accident." In other words, the harm does not have to be immediate or coincide with the accident. Unger, 166 Md. at 203, 206-207, 170 A. 777.
We gather from these cases that our predecessors embraced, with some qualifications, for the Workers' Compensation act the common law's notion that an injury solely to one's mind is damnum absque injuria unless accompanied by physical harm. We indicated, however, that the physical injury need not be caused by physical impact or harm
directly to the body but may be the result of a nervous shock. Furthermore, the injury need not be externally apparent, but may be to the internal structure of the body, as for example, cerebral hemorrhage, apoplexy, heart failure or paralysis. The symptoms of injury need not be immediately apparent but may follow the accident by some lapse of time. Some of the cases may be viewed as suggesting that psychological injuries may be compensable when they result in physiological trauma, but none of them expressly answer the question.
B
The matter of injuries of a mental or emotional nature arises in tort actions founded in negligence and in actions under the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, (see note 2, supra). In the absence of a textually demonstrable legislative intent to exclude from compensability those accidental injuries that result in mental harm alone and in the lack of a definitive answer in our Workers' Compensation cases, we turn to tort cases.
We culled the following cases: City Pass. Ry. Co. v. Kemp., 61 Md. 74(1883); P., B. & W. R. Co. v. Mitchell, 107 Md. 600, 69 A. 422(1908); Green v. Shoemaker, 111 Md. 69, 73 A. 688(1909); Balt. & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Harris, 121 Md. 254, 88 A. 282(1913); Patapsco Loan Co. v. Hobbs, 129 Md. 9, 98 A. 239(1916); Tea Company v. Roch, 160 Md. 189, 153 A. 22(1931); Bowman v. Williams, 164 Md. 397, 165 A. 182(1933); Mahnke v. Moore, 197 Md. 61, 77 A.2d 923(1951); Vance v. Vance, 286 Md. 490, 408 A.2d 728(1979).
In Kemp, 61 Md. at 81, the Court referred to the general rule that
in actions of tort [founded on negligence] the wrong-doer is liable for all the direct injury resulting from his wrongful act, and that too although the extent or special nature of the resulting injury could not, with certainty, have been foreseen or contemplated as the probable result of the act done.
Mitchell, 107 Md. at 607, 69 A. 422, foun
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.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|