I. [§ 14.1] Workers' Compensation

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

I. [§ 14.1] WORKERS' COMPENSATION

John J. Smith, an employee of George Harris, Inc., was injured on the job when molten iron from a blast furnace he was loading with iron ingots splashed onto his right arm and leg. Smith had been assigned by his supervisor to work Furnace No. 1 and was loading iron into the furnace when the conveyor belt malfunctioned, dumping a large quantity of ingots into the molten iron and splashing Smith. He sustained serious second and third degree burns to his arm and leg and required hospitalization for an extended period. After numerous operations, Smith was discharged and rated by his physician as having a 30 percent disability to his right leg and a 10 percent disability to his right arm. Smith filed a claim with the Workers' Compensation Commission.

The employee must file a claim on the forms provided by the Commission. The initial claim form is available on the Commission's website, http://www.wcc.state.md.us/. To represent a party before the Workers' Compensation Commission, an attorney must register with the Commission. COMAR 14.09.04.01(B)(1) (2020). An attorney may register by completing an online application available at the Commission's website. COMAR 14.09.04.01(B)(1) (2020). Following the registration, the Commission shall issue the attorney a multiple digit attorney code. COMAR 14.09.04.01(B)(2) (2020). The Commission's website details the registration process. See generally http://www.wcc.state.md.us/Adjud_Claims/Atty_Reg.html.

A completed form for this fact situation appears on the following page.

COMMENT

The Workers' Compensation Act, codified as Md. Code Ann., Labor and Employment §§ 9-101 through 9-1201 (2016 & Supp. 2021) (hereinafter Lab. & Empl. § ___), replaces an employee's common law right to sue an employer for injuries sustained on the job. The Act sets up a no-fault remedy against an employer, unfettered by the defenses of contributory negligence, assumption of the risk, and the fellow servant rule. Lab. & Empl. § 9-501(b). The relief afforded by the Act is the employee's exclusive remedy, and no action at law may be brought against the employer. Lab. & Empl. § 9-509(a). "The 'quid pro quo' for compensation to an employee, unrelated to fault, is that employers are 'relieved of the prospect of large damage verdicts." Chaney Enter. Ltd. P'ship v. Windsor, 158 Md. App. 1, 17, 854 A.2d 233 (2004) (citation omitted).

The purpose of the Act is "to protect workers and their families through compensation for a loss of earning capacity due to workers' injuries that arise out of and in the course of employment." See Calvo v. Montgomery Cty., 459 Md. 315, 324, 185 A.3d 146, 151 (2018) (citation omitted); see also Schwan Food Co. v. Frederick, 241 Md. App. 628, 648, 211 A.3d 659, 670 (2019). Because the Act is remedial in nature, Maryland appellate courts construe it "as liberally in favor of injured employees as its provisions will permit in order to effectuate its benevolent purposes." Montgomery Cty. v. Cochran, 471 Md. 186, 209, 240 A.3d 1169, 1182 (2020) (citation omitted).

The general rule of liberal construction is not applicable, however, to the Act's statute of limitations provisions. Stachowski v. Sysco Food Servs. of Balt, Inc., 402 Md. 506, 513, 937 A.2d 195 (2007). For a case involving matters pertaining to the limitations period, dual employment, claims against third parties, and subrogation, see Chaney Enter. Ltd. P'ship, 158 Md. App. at 17 (2004).

A good overview can be found in Hayes v. Pratchett, 205 Md. App. 459, 464-56, 45 A.3d 861, 865 (2012):

"The Maryland Workers' Compensation Statute was enacted in 1914 to compensate employees who were injured in the course of their employment." Brady v. Ralph Parsons Co., 308 Md. 486, 496, 520 A.2d 717

...