 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kelly v. Baltimore County1/31/2005
of a de novo nature involved. Thus far, a review by the circuit court of the record before the Commission would suffice. The statutory direction to affirm an error-free Commission decision would not apply, however, to the alternative appeal mode of de novo trial. Indeed, once the circuit court embarks upon its de novo fact-finding mission, it is totally unconcerned with whether the Commission "correctly construed the law and facts" or not.
In the instant case, the second form of judicial review was elected by the County, which requested a trial by jury. Although the jury trial mode of judicial review is a de novo type of proceeding, L.E. § 9-745(b) provides: "(1) [that] the decision of the Commission is presumed to be prima facie correct; and (2) that the party challenging the decision has the burden of proof." As this Court noted in S. B. Thomas, the statutory presumption of correctness, coupled with a de novo factual determination by a jury, give rise to a specific type of review that has been called an "essential trial de novo," which differs from a "true trial de novo." 114 Md. App. at 366.
Judge Moylan described the difference between these two de novo proceedings in General Motors Corp. and in S. B. Thomas. A true trial de novo was described as one in which all of the parties were put back at square one to begin again just as if the adjudication being challenged had never occurred. Accordingly, " hichever party...had the burden of production and the burden of persuasion before the Commission would again have those same burdens before the circuit court." General Motors Corp., 79 Md. App. at 79. An "essential trial de novo" differs, however, due to the conditions required by L.E. § 9-745(b) -- that the decision of the Commission be presumed as prima facie correct, and that the burden of proof be placed on the party attacking the decision.
As Judge Moylan noted, these conditions become relatively meaningless if it is the claimant who loses before the Commission and then petitions for judicial review in the circuit court. S.B. Thomas, 114 Md. App. at 366 (quoting General Motors, 79 Md. App. at 79-80). In that situation, the claimant has the same burden of proving a prima facie case at the circuit court level that he had below at the Commission hearing. Additionally, the claimant must persuade the circuit court by a preponderance of the evidence, just as he was required to persuade the Commission at the original hearing.
The requirements of L.E. § 9-745(b) take on a different meaning, however, when the claimant prevails at the Commission hearing below, and the employer challenges the Commission's decision. In that situation, the allocation of the burdens switches. This Court described the dramatic impact of L.E. § 9-745(b) upon the circuit court's review of a case in which the employer lost before the Commission:
In such a case, the decision of the Commission is, ipso facto, the claimant's prima facie case and the claimant runs no risk of suffering a directed verdict from the insufficiency of his evidence before the circuit court. Indeed the successful claimant, as the non-moving party on appeal, has no burden of production. The qualifying language [of L.E. § 9-745(b)] also gives the successful claimant below the edge--the tie breaker- -if the mind of the fact finder (judge or jury) is in a state of even balance. The tie goes to the winner below.
S.B. Thomas, 114 Md. App. at 367.
Therefore, in an essential de novo review, when the employer pursues judicial review of an unfavorable decision by the Commission, the employer must meet the burden of establishing a prima facie case and must bear the burden of persuading the fact fi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|