W.M. Schlosser Co v. Fund
Decision Date | 12 May 2010 |
Docket Number | 2009.,No. 112,112 |
Citation | 994 A.2d 956,414 Md. 195 |
Parties | W.M. SCHLOSSER CO., et al.v.UNINSURED EMPLOYERS' FUND, et al. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Timothy E. McLaughlin(Ju Y. Oh of Humphreys, McLaughlin & McAleer, LLC, Baltimore), on brief, for petitioners.
Kathleen E. Wherthey, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, and Esther Goldring, Asst. Atty. Gen., Towson), on brief, for respondents.
Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ADKINS, and BARBERA, JJ.
In this appeal, we address the issue of whether a principal contractor, W.M. Schlosser Co., should be liable to pay workers' compensation benefits to an employee of a subcontractor or whether the Uninsured Employers' Fund has to pay the claim.The employee, Jehue Q. Johnson, suffered an accidental injury while working wholly outside of this State in the District of Columbia for Rose Industrial Services, the subcontractor of Schlosser, which had workers' compensation insurance coverage in D.C. but not in Maryland, where Mr. Johnson resided.The gravamen of this case concerns who has the responsibility of paying benefits to Mr. Johnson-Schlosser or the Fund-not whether the compensation should be paid.The issue arises because Mr. Johnson filed for workers' compensation benefits in Maryland for his accidental injury that occurred solely in the District of Columbia, where Rose only had workers' compensation coverage; Schlosser had workers' compensation coverage in Maryland.
The Workers' Compensation Commission found the situs 1 for the claim to be the determining factor, when determining that Schlosser was a “statutory employer” within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act,Sections 9-101 to 9-1201 of the Labor and Employment Article, Maryland Code(1991, 1999 Repl. Vol.),2 but not liable to Mr. Johnson, because there would not have been workers' compensation jurisdiction over a claim in Maryland against Schlosser if it had been the direct employer of Mr. Johnson.The Circuit Court affirmed the Commission, and the Court of Special Appeals reversed, basing its decision on public policy concerns, rather than on a situs determination, without deference to the determination by the Workers' Compensation Commission.We granted certiorari Schlosser v. Uninsured Employers' Fund,411 Md. 355, 983 A.2d 431(2009), to address the following questions:
1) Was the Circuit Court correct in affirming the Commission's decision based on Maryland Code, Labor and Employment Article, § 9-508 and finding no Maryland jurisdiction over the Petitioners?
2) Did the Court of Special Appeals err in reversing the Circuit Court's granting of the Petitioners' cross motion for summary judgment by finding that since the Claimant is a covered employee of Rose, he is automatically a covered employee of the alleged statutory employer, PetitionerW.M. Schlosser(hereinafter “Schlosser”)?
We shall answer both questions in the affirmative and uphold the Circuit Court's acceptance of the Commission's determination that the Fund, not Schlosser, was to pay Johnson his workers' compensation benefits.In doing so, we defer to the Commission's interpretation of Section 9-508 of the Workers' Compensation Act and hold that the Court of Special Appeals erred in reversing the Circuit Court, because Mr. Johnson, who was injured while working wholly outside of this State in the District of Columbia, would not have been a “covered employee” under the workers' compensation statute, had he been directly employed by Schlosser, rather than through a subcontractor.As a result, the Uninsured Employers' Fund is liable for workers' compensation benefits payable to Mr. Johnson, because Mr. Johnson's direct employer, Rose, was uninsured in Maryland.3
On May 8, 2004, Jehue Q. Johnson was an employee of Rose Industrial Services, a hazardous waste removal company, when he was injured while acting as a hazardous waste removal technician, at the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant located at 5000 Overlook Avenue, SW, in the District of Columbia.Rose's work at Blue Plains was being performed pursuant to a subcontract with W.M. Schlosser Co., a Maryland based corporation, which had contracted with Rose to do work solely at the Blue Plains site.
Following his injury, Mr. Johnson filed a claim with the Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission.4Mr. Johnson's employer, Rose, carried workers' compensation insurance in the District of Columbia,5 but not in Maryland, and was, therefore, considered to be an uninsured employer.The Uninsured Employers' Fund defended the claim before the Commission and impleaded Schlosser and its insurer, the Injured Workers' Insurance Fund.Commissioner Lauren A. Sfekas presided over a hearing on November 22, 2005, to determine issues of liability and coverage and thereafter, issued an Award of Compensation, ordering that Mr. Johnson was to receive compensation for his temporary total disability.She also found that Rose had workers' compensation insurance in the District of Columbia but not Maryland, and was, therefore, a “Non-Insured Employer” in Maryland.She further ruled that Schlosser was Mr. Johnson's statutory employer, but that Schlosser, nonetheless, was not liable for Mr. Johnson's claim:
Hearing was held in the above claim at Baltimore, Maryland on November 22, 2005 on the following issues:
1) Did the claimant sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment?
(Emboldened in original).
The Uninsured Employers' Fund filed a Motion for Rehearing with the Workers' Compensation Commission, but the Commission denied the motion and affirmed its previous Order.The Fund sought judicial review in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County and later filed a motion for summary judgment with a request for a hearing.Schlosser filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.
Before holding a hearing, Judge Thomas J. Bollinger denied the Fund's motion for summary judgment and granted Schlosser's cross-motion for summary judgment:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Richard Beavers Constr., Inc. v. Wagstaff
...draw reasonable inferences even if those inferences fall short of a certainty or near-certainty. See W.M. Schlosser Co. v. Uninsured Emp'rs' Fund , 414 Md. 195, 205, 994 A.2d 956 (2010) (explaining that the Commission's conclusions are adequately supported as long as "a reasoning mind reaso......
-
Montgomery Cnty. v. Cochran
...were erroneous.") (citing Wal Mart Stores, Inc. v. Holmes , 416 Md. 346, 359, 7 A.3d 13 (2010) and W.M. Schlosser Co. v. Uninsured Emp'rs' Fund , 414 Md. 195, 204, 994 A.2d 956 (2010) ).Resolving these questions requires us to construe and apply several sections of the Act. In interpreting ......
-
Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Md. Dep't of Agric.
...709, 28 A.3d 178 (quoting Wal Mart Stores, Inc. v. Holmes, 416 Md. 346, 359, 7 A.3d 13 (2010)) (quoting Schlosser v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 414 Md. 195, 203–04, 994 A.2d 956 (2010)), except in the “interest of completeness.” See Whitley, 429 Md. at 155, 55 A.3d 37. If the language is am......
-
Martin v. Allegany Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
...A.3d 488 (2012) (quoting Wal Mart Stores, Inc. v. Holmes, 416 Md. 346, 359, 7 A.3d 13 (2010)) (quoting Schlosser v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 414 Md. 195, 203–04, 994 A.2d 956 (2010)), except in the “interest of completeness.” See Whitley, 429 Md. at 155, 55 A.3d 37. If the language is amb......
-
Introduction To the Maryland Workers' Compensation Act
...Id. §§ 9-407, 9-1107, 9-1108.[15] Id. § 9-509©.[16] Id.[17] Id. §§ 9-1001-9-1014; W.M. Schlosser Co. v. Uninsured Emp'rs' Fund, 414 Md. 195, 994 A.2d. 956 (2010); Injured Workers' Ins. Fund v. Uninsured Emp'rs' Fund, 221 Md. App. 322, 108 A.3d 609 (2015); Granite State Ins. Co. v. Hernandez......
-
The Employer-Employee Relationship
...275, 609 A.2d 297 (1992); Uninsured Emp'rs' Fund v. W. M. Schlosser Co., 186 Md. App. 599, 975 A.2d 221 (2009), rev'd on other grounds, 414 Md. 195, 994 A.2d 956 (2010).[67] Rodrigues-Novo v. Recchi Am., Inc., 381 Md. 49, 846 A.2d 1048 (2004); Inner Harbor Warehouse & Distrib., Inc. v. Myer......
-
Jurisdiction
...14 A.3d 678 (2011), aff'd, 428 Md. 198, 51 A.3d 544 (2012).[34] LAB. & EMPL. § 9-203(c).[35] W.M. Schlosser Co. v. Uninsured Emp'rs' Fund, 414 Md. 195, 994 A.2d 956 (2010); Gatton v. Sline Co., 199 Md. 578, 87 A.2d 524 (1952); L.R. Willson & Sons v. Garrett, 76 Md. App. 120, 543 A.2d 875 (1......
-
Appeals To Courts of Appeal
...Workers' Ins. Fund v. Subsequent Injury Fund, 222 Md. App. 347, 112 A.3d 1092 (2015).[122] W.M. Schlosser Co. v. Uninsured Emp'rs' Fund, 414 Md. 195, 994 A.2d 956 (2010); Long v. Injured Workers' Ins. Fund, 225 Md. App. 48, 123 A.3d 562 (2015).[123] Yingling v. Millennium Inorganic Chems., ......