Perkins v. International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local Union No. 7

• Decision Date: 01 April 1965
• Docket Number: No. 208,208
• Citation: 238 Md. 221,208 A.2d 372
• Parties: Martin E. PERKINS, Sr. v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS, LOCAL UNION NO. 7.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 221

238 Md. 221

208 A.2d 372

Martin E. PERKINS, Sr. v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS, LOCAL UNION NO. 7.

No. 208.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

April 1, 1965.

Leonard S. Jacobson, Baltimore (Preston A. Pairo, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Robert E. Cadigan and Alfred M. Porth, Baltimore, for appellee.

Before HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY, OPPENHEIMER and BARNES, JJ.

MARBURY, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered May 28, 1964 by Judge Sodaro in the Superior Court of Baltimore City, sitting without a jury. He affirmed the findings of the Workmen's Compensation Commission, which on July 26, 1963, passed an order adverse to appellant, Martin E. Perkins, Sr., disallowing his claim for compensation against his employer, International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local Union No. 7, appellee.

Since 1953 until the time when his claim arose, appellant was employed by appellee as its business representative. He opened the union office at 8 a. m. each morning, normally remained there until 9:30, during which time he received telephone calls from contractors or elevator construction companies who needed men to work on specific construction jobs. He then would contact the members of the union and assign them to these jobs. Later, after 9:30, he would proceed to the construction sites to visit the foreman and to see if the men he had assigned to that particular job were working. Perkins would travel from job to job checking on union members. Later in the afternoon he would return to the union office to receive telephone calls and to do the book work.

On March 29, 1960, the appellant returned to the union office at 2:15 p. m. to work on the records. After spending some time working on the books at his desk, he alleged that he arose, put his hands on the desk which slipped forward and he fell backward into his chair, experiencing a pain in his back. He went home and the next day contacted his family physician, Dr. Mueller, who rendered treatement. On April 8, appellant was admitted to a hospital where he remained for five days and returned to his employment on April 18. Several weeks after the accident, he completed in part a claim form for accident and health benefits and forwarded this claim to the Travelers Insurance Company. He also described the occurrence in a claim filed with the Workmen's Compensation Commission.

The appellant first contended that he sustained an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. He testified that his injury occurred when arising from the chair at his desk and that the desk slipped forward. However, this version of the accident was contradicted in several material aspects casting doubt on the accuracy of his testimony. Perkins not only admitted that the desk which slipped was 'mahogany' and 'rather large' but also failed to mention anything regarding 'slippin...