Montgomery Cnty. v. Woldu
| Decision Date | 14 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 3389,3389 |
| Parties | MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND v. SOLOMON WOLDU |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Montgomery County
Case No. 439537V
UNREPORTED
Opinion by Beachley, J.
*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.
The Workers' Compensation Commission disallowed appellee Solomon Woldu's claim for disability benefits, finding that his injury resulting from an aneurysm rupture was idiopathic in nature. Woldu appealed that decision to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, which reversed the Commission's decision.
In this Court, appellant Montgomery County presents a single question:
Did the trial court err in finding [a]ppellee's accidental injury arose out of and in the course of his employment and therefore was covered under the Workers' Compensation Act?
We perceive no error and therefore shall affirm the circuit court's judgment.
The circumstances surrounding Mr. Woldu's injury are undisputed. Mr. Woldu was employed as a bus operator by Montgomery County, Maryland. On December 2, 2016, he was found unconscious and bleeding on the floor of a bus. Footage from a video on the bus showed that, during a ten-minute break between runs, Mr. Woldu performed several leg stretches followed by twenty-one "push-pull exercises," similar to push-ups, against the back of one of the seats on the bus. He then grabbed his head, sat down on one of the seats, and collapsed to the floor. He remained on the floor of the bus for over an hour and forty-five minutes before he was discovered. Mr. Woldu had suffered the rupture of a 17.1 millimeter aneurysm, resulting in a serious brain injury.
On January 9, 2017, Mr. Woldu filed a claim with the Workers' Compensation Commission. The Commission disallowed Mr. Woldu's claim, finding that "claimant's injury was idiopathic in nature, and, therefore, is not compensable." Mr. Woldu appealed that decision to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, requesting a jury trial. Theparties subsequently agreed to proceed with a bench trial, which took place on October 11, 2018.
Although there is no dispute as to how Mr. Woldu was injured, the parties vigorously contested whether Mr. Woldu's injuries were compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act. The County asserted that Mr. Woldu's injury was not compensable because it did not "arise[] out of and in the course of employment" as required by Md. Code , § 9-101(b)(1) of the Labor and Employment Article ("LE"). Because the underlying premise of the County's argument was that Mr. Woldu's aneurysm rupture was idiopathic and had no relation to his employment, the trial involved the prototypical "battle of the experts" with Gary W. London, M.D. testifying for Mr. Woldu and Ghazala Kazi, M.D. testifying for the County. Because both experts carefully examined and relied upon the exercises Mr. Woldu was performing at the time of his injury, we will first outline the County's policy regarding recommended physical fitness for its bus drivers.
During training, bus operators are given a packet of information that includes a section about physical fitness and bus ergonomics. The packet states, It goes on to suggest that bus operators who are not feeling well would struggle to properly perform their job duties. The training packet additionally states:
The section of the packet that introduces physical fitness lists "Cardiovascular Fitness" and "Muscle Flexibility & Strength," stating about the latter, "Stretching exercises improve flexibility, while 'resistance' exercises (such as push-ups) build muscle strength." The packet suggests that, if the employee falls into one of six listed categories, he or she should consult a physician before starting an exercise program. Among the listed categories are those who are "[o]ver 35 years old and have not exercised in a while." Mr. Woldu was 59 years old at the time of his injury. The record does not indicate how frequently Mr. Woldu exercised.
The packet also includes a section on "bus ergonomics," which provides examples of stretches as well as pictures of people demonstrating the stretches while standing in front of a bus or while seated in an office. The packet states, "Use these simple stretches on your break to loosen tight muscles and relieve stress!" We now turn to the expert medical testimony.
Dr. London's testimony was presented through video deposition. He testified thatMr. Woldu's aneurysm rupture was "secondary to and during a prescribed exercise program while working as a Ride On bus driver for Montgomery County, Maryland." Dr. London supported his opinion that Mr. Woldu's exercise on the bus contributed to the aneurysm rupture with a study indicating that "in the hour after exposure to physical exercise, . . . patients over the age of 60 have a 6 times higher risk of rupture." Dr. London described Mr. Woldu's exercises on the bus as "vigorous push-pull exercises." He testified that, while these exercises were not explicitly part of the bus ergonomics program encouraged by the County, they were "a continuation of what [Mr. Woldu] was encouraged to do in the first place." On cross-examination, Dr. London agreed that large, irregularly-shaped aneurysms, such as Mr. Woldu's, have a higher chance of rupturing. Nevertheless, Dr. London expressed his opinion, without objection, that Mr. Woldu's exercise "absolutely" contributed to the rupture. Dr. London also opined that the delay in medical treatment exacerbated Mr. Woldu's brain injury.2
Dr. Kazi testified that the rupture of the aneurysm could have been spontaneous and it was essentially a coincidence that the aneurysm happened to rupture while Mr. Woldu was exercising. She stated that the most important factors concerning aneurysm rupture are the size, regularity, and location of the aneurysm as well as the patient's age. Dr. Kazi opined that Mr. Woldu's rupture was caused by the large size and irregular shape of his aneurysm. Dr. Kazi acknowledged that some studies suggest that "vigorous exercise cancause an aneurysm rupture[,]" but stated that she did "not think that [Mr. Woldu's activity] was a vigorous exercise." She described vigorous exercise as activities which cause an increase in a person's heart and respiratory rates. In her view, the exercises Mr. Woldu performed before the rupture were not vigorous because he did not appear to be out of breath and he had only performed the exercises for 47 seconds before he collapsed. She acknowledged that the County encouraged its bus drivers to do stretching exercises, but she did not agree that Mr. Woldu's exercise "accelerated the rupture." Dr. Kazi testified that there are 145 trigger factors for aneurysm rupture, including "nose-blowing, straining for defecation, being startled, anger, sexual intercourse, and physical exercise." She also opined that the study Dr. London relied upon supported the conclusion that exercise does not cause rupture of larger aneurysms. She testified that there is no way to know for certain if Mr. Woldu's injury was exacerbated by the delay in medical treatment, but that it is possible he would have had a better outcome if he had received treatment within fifteen minutes.
At the conclusion of trial, the circuit court found that the County encouraged bus operators to engage in the wellness activities listed in the packet. The court further found that "it was reasonable for the plaintiff, Mr. Woldu, at the time of his accidental injury, to be engaging in bus ergonomics," and that Mr. Woldu's bus exercises at the time of his injury were reasonable and incident to his employment. In so finding, the court focused on various statements made in the wellness packet that positively correlated exercise to improved job performance. Moreover, the court accepted Dr. London's testimony that Mr. Woldu's exercise on the bus contributed to the aneurysm rupture.
Concluding that Mr. Woldu's injury arose out of and in the course of employment, the circuit court found Mr. Woldu's claim compensable. After the court denied the County's motion to alter or amend judgment, this timely appeal ensued.
The County argues that "the circuit court committed legal error in finding the case compensable as a matter of law" because the injury was idiopathic. In the County's view, the evidence failed to show either that the exercises caused the aneurysm to burst or that Mr. Woldu's specific "push-pull" exercises were incidental to his employment. The County also argues that the circuit court improperly concluded that the failure to discover Mr. Woldu for over one-and-a-half hours after he collapsed exacerbated his injury. According to the County, failure to promptly respond goes only to negligence, which is irrelevant under workers' compensation law.3
Mr. Woldu responds that, because Montgomery County encouraged bus operators to perform stretches and exercise as part of its wellness program, his "push-pull" exercises were incidental to his employment. Mr. Woldu further argues that expert testimony at trial provided a sufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial