 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kelly v. Baltimore County1/31/2005
have indicated that the normal rules governing summary judgment apply in "appeals" from the Workers' Compensation Commission. See, e.g., Egypt Farms, Inc. v. Lepley, 49 Md. App. 171, 176 (1981). See also Dawson's Charter Serv. v. Chin, 68 Md. App. 433, 440 (1986) ("Summary judgment may be invoked to prevent an unnecessary trial in a worker compensation appeal, just as in any other action."); and Maloney v. Carling Nat'l Breweries, Inc., 52 Md. App. 556, 559-60 (1982) (summary judgment rules apply to workers' compensation appeals).
The Court of Appeals summarized procedures for considering a summary judgment motion in Peck v. Baltimore County, 286 Md. 368 (1979), which this Court quoted in Egypt Farms and Maloney. In Peck, the Court of Appeals stated:
We have said many times that the function of a summary judgment proceeding is not to try the case or to attempt to resolve factual issues, but to ascertain whether there is a dispute as to a material fact sufficient to provide an issue to be tried. ... Moreover, all inferences must be resolved against the moving party when a determination is made as to whether a factual dispute exists, even if the underlying facts are undisputed. ... " ven where the underlying facts are undisputed, if those facts are susceptible of more than one permissible inference, the choice between those inferences should not be made as a matter of law, but should be submitted to the trier of fact."
Peck, 286 Md. at 381 (citations omitted).
The Court of Appeals demonstrated the appropriate application of the summary judgment rules in a workers' compensation case in Fenwick Motor Co. v. Fenwick, 258 Md. 134 (1970), in which it reversed a decision by the circuit court that had granted summary judgment in the claimant's favor. Quoting from another workers' compensation case, Talley v. Dept. of Correction, 230 Md. 22 (1962), the Court in Fenwick stated:
"It is true that where the facts are conceded, undisputed, or uncontroverted, and the inferences to be drawn therefrom are plain, definite and undisputed..., their legal significance is a matter of law to be determined by the court, but where the facts, or inferences therefrom, or both, are in dispute, such questions are to be determined by a jury..., and the jury...is entitled to weigh and evaluate the evidence, and may disbelieve evidence, even though it is `uncontradicted.'"
Fenwick, 258 Md. at 139.
In Fenwick, the circuit court granted summary judgment for the claimant, a dependent child who had lost her father in an employment-related accident. The circuit court found there was no dispute as to any material fact; it concluded that the claimant-child was totally dependent on her deceased father and should be awarded compensation . The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's decision, stating:
n a summary judgment proceeding where there is a reasonable basis for a dispute over material factual inferences, it is not the function of the court to resolve them as a matter of law. The court's function at this stage of the proceedings is to determine if there is a genuine dispute of fact, including factual inferences. Implicit in [the court's] overturning the findings of the Commission is a conclusion that the inferences they drew were wrong. While it is possible the Commission could have been dead wrong, the facts presented here suggest a reasonable basis for a dispute over the inferences to be drawn from them. That being the case summary judgment was inappropriate.
Id. at 140.
Similarly, in Egypt Farms, supra, this Court reversed a decision by the circuit court that had granted summary judgment in the claimant's fav
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.
|
|