Semmes Law Updates

In Elec. Gen. Corp v. Labonte, the Court of Appeals held that a subsequent intervening event occurring outside of Claimant’s employment does not preclude liability of the Employer for worsening of prior workplace injury.

New regulations have gone into effect as of March 12, 2018 that impact in-state claims handling requirements.

In a narrow set of cases, Commission may use its discretion when calculating average weekly wage. It is critical for employers to carefully document employee attendance, which may serve as an important defense where claimants do not have valid reasons for missing time from work in the weeks preceding the work accident.

In R.K. Grounds v. Wilson, 235 Md. App. 20 (2017), the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that the Workers’ Compensation Commission does not have jurisdiction to decide whether money from a settlement of a claim is subject to garnishment. Rather, it is the circuit court that has subject matter jurisdiction to decide garnishment issues.

Relying on WV. Code § 23-4-1e(b) and the “Full Force and Effect” doctrine, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied a former inmate workers’ compensation benefits as the claimant was “confined” in a state correctional facility and not “entitled to benefits offered to state employees.”

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland vacates an order of default, even with evidence of defendant’s dilatory conduct, finding that absent prejudice to the plaintiffs, filing the motion to vacate three weeks after entry of the order is prompt.