Elec. Gen. Corp. v. Labonte

Decision Date27 July 2016
Docket NumberSept. Term, 2015.,No. 0718,0718
Citation144 A.3d 856,229 Md.App. 187
Parties ELECTRICAL GENERAL CORP., et al. v. Michael L. LABONTE.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

229 Md.App. 187
144 A.3d 856

ELECTRICAL GENERAL CORP., et al.
v.
Michael L. LABONTE.

No. 0718
Sept.
Term, 2015.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

July 27, 2016.
Reconsideration Denied Sept. 28, 2016.


144 A.3d 858

Lindsey M. Cook (Lawrence G. Giambelluca, Justin A. Wallace, Semmes, Bowen, Semmes, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.

Amy E. Schaeffer (Chasen Boscolo Injury Lawyers, on the brief), Greenbelt, MD, for Appellee.

Panel: BERGER, WRIGHT, and REED, JJ.

REED, J.

229 Md.App. 191

This appeal stems from a jury verdict in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County that reversed the finding of the Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission (“Commission”) that Michael Labonte's current back condition is not causally related to the accidental work injury he suffered on September 2, 2004, but rather entirely to a subsequent intervening accident he suffered on December 31, 2006. In so reversing the Commission, the jury authorized Mr. Labonte's requests for medical treatment and payment of his medical bill dated February 2, 2012. Mr. Labonte's employer, Electrical General Corporation, and insurer, Selective Insurance Company of America, (together “appellants”) present four questions for our review, which, for clarity, we have rephrased as follows:1

1. Did the Workers' Compensation Commission's previous finding that Mr. Labonte had sustained a subsequent intervening accident bar him from receiving the additional benefits awarded to him by the jury?

2. Should the doctrine of collateral estoppel have barred the jury from considering whether Mr. Labonte's current
229 Md.App. 192
back condition was caused by a subsequent intervening accident?

3. Did the circuit court err in submitting to the jury the question of whether Mr. Labonte's back condition was causally related to the work injury?
144 A.3d 859
4. Did the circuit court err by allowing the jury to decide issues relating to both apportionment and the reasonableness and necessity of Mr. Labonte's requests for medical treatment and payment of medical expenses?

Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 2, 2004, Michael Labonte (“appellee”), an electrician, sustained an accidental work injury to his back while attempting to steady a falling forty-foot ladder. He subsequently filed a claim with the Workers' Compensation Commission on September 27, 2004. The Commission conducted a hearing on June 15, 2005, and, by Order dated June 22, 2005, found that the appellee's persisting back condition was the result of the aforementioned accidental work injury. Following that Order, the appellants began paying for the appellee's medical treatment and providing him with out-of-work benefits. The Commission conducted three more hearings throughout the next year and a half, each resulting in the authorization of the appellee's requests for additional medical treatment and/or out-of-work benefits.

On December 31, 2006, while operating his vehicle on the roadway, the appellee was pulled over by a police officer. An altercation ensued, during which time the appellee was slammed against the hood of the police car by an officer. This altercation caused the appellee to experience increased pain in his back. Therefore, the appellee's treating physician, Dr. Najmaldin O. Karim, placed him out of work for approximately one month. Dr. Karim indicated that the altercation with the police officer aggravated the appellee's pre-existing herniated disc but did not create a new or separate injury.

229 Md.App. 193

In early 2007, the appellee filed Issues with the Commission requesting additional temporary total disability from January 4, 2007, to March 9, 2007. The Commission conducted a hearing on this request on March 9, 2007. Thereafter, by Order dated March 30, 2007, the Commission found that “the [appellee]'s need for lumbar epidural injections is not causally related to [his work-related] accident” in 2004. Furthermore, the Commission found that the appellee's disability between January 4, 2007, and March 9, 2007, was caused by “a subsequent event on December 31, 2006” (i.e., the altercation with the police officer). Accordingly, the Commission denied appellee's early 2007 request for treatment.

Later in 2007, the appellee filed another set of Issues with the Commission. This time, in addition to the payment of medical expenses, he requested compensation for permanent partial rather than temporary total disability. The Commission conducted a hearing on October 4, 2007. On October 15, 2007, the Commission issued an Order in which it found, with regard to the appellee's claim for permanent partial disability, that he “[h]as overall 30% industrial disability to the body due to an injury to the back; 20% is due to this accidental injury, and 10% is causally connected to pre-existing and subsequent condition[.]” As such, the Commission ordered that the appellee be paid “at the rate of $247.00, payable weekly, beginning December 20, 2006, for a period of 100 weeks.” However, the Commission again denied, on the basis of a subsequent intervening injury, the appellee's request for payment of the medical bills he incurred between January 15, 2007, and March 5, 2007.

On October 10, 2012, the appellee filed a petition to reopen his workers' compensation claim for worsening of his permanent partial disability. He again requested authorization of medical treatment and payment

144 A.3d 860

of medical expenses. However, this time his request for payment of medical expenses was in relation to those he incurred on February 16, 2012, rather than in early 2007. A hearing took place before the Commission on January 16, 2013, which was followed up by an Order dated January 24, 2013. In this latest Order, the Commission

229 Md.App. 194

found that the “Orders dated [March 30, 2007,] and [October 15, 2007,] establish a subsequent intervening event which breaks the causal nexus between the accidental injury and the current condition.” The Commission further found that “there is no[ ] worsening of [the appellee's permanent partial disability] which is causally related to the accidental injury of [September 2, 2004].” Accordingly, the Commission denied the appellee's requests for medical treatment and payment of medical expenses.

On February 4, 2013, the appellee filed a Petition for Judicial Review of the Commission's January 24, 2013, Order. In response, on November 13, 2013, the appellants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. A hearing was held on the appellants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County on March 10, 2014. By Order dated March 13, 2014, the Motion for Summary Judgment was denied.

The case proceeded to jury trial on February 12, 2015. Conflicting expert testimony was presented during the trial, which lasted two days. Dr. Michael Franchetti testified on behalf of the appellee that the appellee suffered from an overall impairment level of fifty-three (53) percent. Dr. Franchetti further testified that the entirety of the appellee's impairment level was caused by the accidental work injury he sustained on September 2, 2004. The appellants' expert, Dr. Edward Cohen, disagreed. Dr. Cohen testified that the appellee's back condition had not worsened since 2007 as a result of the original work injury in 2004.

On February 13, 2015, the jury returned its verdict that: 1) the appellee's current back condition is causally related to the September 2, 2004 work injury; 2) the appellee's back condition has worsened one hundred (100) percent as a result of the accidental work injury since the Commission's October 15, 2007, Order; 3) the appellee's request for medical treatment was reasonable, necessary, and causally related to his work injury; and 4) the appellee's request for payment of medical expenses incurred on February 16, 2012, was also reasonable,

229 Md.App. 195

necessary, and causally related to the work injury. The jury's verdict was entered on March 4, 2015. On March 6, 2015, the appellants filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, which was ultimately denied. Therefore, on June 15, 2015, the appellants noted this timely appeal.

DISCUSSION

I. LEGAL EFFECT OF THE SUBSEQUENT INTERVENING ACCIDENT

A. The Contentions of the Parties

The appellants argue that “[w]here a workers' compensation Claimant's disability is due in part to [a subsequent intervening] injur[y], ... the Employer is not responsible for ongoing benefits or treatment.” The appellants rely primarily on two cases in support of this proposition: Martin v. Allegany Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 73 Md.App. 695, 536 A.2d 132 (1988), and Reeves Motor Co. v. Reeves, 204 Md. 576, 105 A.2d 236 (1954). The appellants assert that the appellee's altercation with the police officer on December 31, 2006, broke the causal connection...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Harford Cnty. v. Md. Reclamation Assocs., Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 1, 2019
    ...or case law, our Court must determine whether the trial court's conclusions are ‘legally correct[.]’ " Elec. Gen. Corp. v. Labonte , 229 Md. App. 187, 196, 144 A.3d 856 (2016) (citations and quotations omitted), aff'd , 454 Md. 113, 164 A.3d 157 (2017). To determine whether the trial court'......
  • Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Fund for Animals, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 27, 2017
    ...de novo ." Garrity v. Md. State Bd. of Plumbing , 447 Md. 359, 368, 135 A.3d 452, 458 (2016). See also Elec. Gen. Corp. v. Labonte , 229 Md.App. 187, 202, 144 A.3d 856, 865 (2016). As for the Court of Special Appeals' decision to consider an alleged "unpreserved issue," this Court reviews t......
  • Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Fund for Animals, Inc., 18
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 27, 2017
    ...de novo." Garrity v. Md. State Bd. of Plumbing, 447 Md. 359, 368, 135 A.3d 452, 458 (2016). See also Elec. Gen. Corp. v. Labonte, 229 Md. App. 187, 202, 144 A.3d 856, 865 (2016). As for the Court of Special Appeals' decision to consider an alleged "unpreserved issue," this Court reviews tha......
  • Harford Cnty. v. Md. Reclamation Assocs., Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 1, 2019
    ...statutory or case law, our Court must determine whether the trial court's conclusions are 'legally correct[.]'" Elec. Gen. Corp. v. Labonte, 229 Md. App. 187, 196 (2016) (citations and quotations omitted), aff'd, 454 Md. 113 (2017). To determine whether the trial court's decision was legall......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT