 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Marshall v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp.2/28/2005
Appellant, Terry Marshall, challenges the grant of summary judgment to appellee, the University of Maryland Medical System Corporation ("the University"), by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County during a review of a Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission ("the Commission") award.
Marshall presents the following issues for our review:
I. Did the circuit court err in reversing an order of the Commission that found Marshall's entire award of 25% permanent partial disability attributable to the later of two claims involving similar parts of the body?
II. Assuming that the Commission's award was attributable to both claims, did the circuit court err in finding that the Commission was required to apportion its award between that claim?
Finding no error in the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to the University, we affirm.
FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
On May 21, 1999, while walking down a hallway at work, Marshall slipped on a grape and fell, landing on both knees. Due to the injury sustained from this accident, Marshall underwent arthroscopic surgery on her right knee. On April 10, 2001, Marshall was involved in a second accident at work when a chair Marshall was attempting to sit on collapsed, causing her to fall to the ground. Marshall claimed injury to her "shoulders, ankles, lower back, and not too much to her knees" from this fall. Marshall then underwent two more surgeries, one for her left knee and one for her left elbow. Marshall was employed by the University at the time of both incidents.
Marshall filed claims for both accidents with the Commission, which she thereafter reopened, alleging permanent partial disability ("PPD") to various parts of her body. The claims were consolidated, and on November 15, 2002, the Commission held a hearing, during which the University contested causal relationship and sought an apportionment of disability.
The Commission then issued an award of compensation , ruling that Marshall sustained 25% PPD "as a result of the injury to the right leg (knee), back, left foot (ankle), left leg (knee), and left arm[.]" The Commission awarded compensation "at the rate of $223.00, payable weekly, beginning January 13, 2002, for a period of 125 weeks."
The University thereafter filed a Motion for Rehearing with the Commission, contending, inter alia, that the Commission failed to apportion the 25% PPD finding between the 1999 and the 2001 incidents. The Commission denied the rehearing motion.
The University then filed petitions for review in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, which consolidated the cases into one action. The University next filed a motion for summary judgment, and after hearing argument, the circuit court, by written order: (1) granted summary judgment to the University, (2) rescinded and annulled the Commission's award, and (3) remanded to the Commission to schedule a hearing in both claims in order to apportion the percentage of PPD among the two accidents. Marshall then filed a timely appeal.
DISCUSSION
I. Standard Of Review
On appeal, Commission decisions are presumed to be prima facie correct. Md. Code (1991, 1999 Repl. Vol., 2004 Cum. Supp.), § 9-745(b)(1) of the Labor & Employment Article ("LE"). The circuit court, however, must still consider whether the Commission: "(1) justly considered all the facts about the accidental personal injury . . . ; (2) exceeded the powers granted to it under [LE title 9]; or (3) misconstrued the law and facts applicable in the case decided." LE § 9-745(c). Summary judgment is appropriate in a worker compensation appeal to avoid an unnecess
Page 1 2 3 4 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|