Board of Education v. Reynolds

Johnson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. By the judgment of the Baltimore City Court here appealed from, the decision of the State Industrial Accident Commission in favor of the Board of Education of Harford County, employer, against which a claim had been filed by Ruth A. Reynolds, widow of Chester L. Reynolds, deceased, was reversed. Chester L. Reynolds, thirty-seven years of age, was ⁴⁵⁶ regularly employed by the State Roads Commission, but in May or June, 1935, was permitted to work on alternate weeks only, and during the time he was not engaged at hisi regular employment he sought other work in Harford County, where for several years he had resided with his wife and children. Apparently he was industrious and accepted any work he could secure, for during that summer he worked as a farm laborer, and also painted a school house for appellant at Coopstown, and did certain other small jobs for appellant upon some of the public school buildings of Harford County.

In the latter part of August, 1935, the superintendent of the Board of Education of Harford County called to him in reference to some supplies left over from former work, and was asked by Reynolds for additional work. The county superintendent told him he could clean the yards of Mechanicsville and Hickory schools, but he did not wish this to interfere with his other employment, as the yards could be cleaned at odd times and Reynolds would be paid three dollars for each. On August 29th, Reynolds, assisted by his son, cleaned the yard of Mechanicsville school, for which he subsequently received three dollars. The evidence is susceptible of an inference that in doing this work he came in contact with poison ivy, which caused skin eruptions on his arms and legs, which condition rapidly grew worse, notwithstanding treatment which he received from a local physician, as well as hospitalization in Havre de Grace, and later in the Marine Hospital at Baltimore, where his death occurred on September 22nd, and from the medical testimony it could be found that there existed a causal connection between the poison ivy infection and his death.

His dependent widow filed a claim with the State Industrial Accident Commission against appellant for compensation, asserting that his death was the result of an accidental personal injury sustained by him while in appellant’s employ. The commission considered the claim upon these issues: (1) Whether or not the Board of Education of Harford County was the employer of the deceased em ⁴⁵⁷ ployee at the time of alleged injury; (2) whether or not deceased was an independent contractor; (3) whether or not deceased received an accidental injury arising out of and. in the course of employment; (4) whether or not death was the result of an accidental injury. While its answer to the first issue was “Yes,” it answered the second “Yes” and the third and fourth “No,” and disallowed the claim. From that decision Mrs. Reynolds filed an appeal to the Baltimore City Court, where counsel for appellant appeared specially and filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, assigning as a reason therefor that the alleged accident happened in Harford County, and claimant, at the time of its happening, as well as at the time of filing the motion, was a resident of Harford County, and, the appeal in question not having been taken to the Circuit Court of that county, the Baltimore City Court was without jurisdiction to hear the case.

Treating that motion as a plea, claimant filed a demurrer thereto which was overruled, whereupon she filed a replication to the same, with the request that the issue thereby raised as to her residence be tried before a jury. From what this court said in Owners’ Realty Co. v. Bailey, 153 Md. 274, 278 , 138 A. 235 , concerning sections 39 and 56 of article 101 of the Code, formal pleadings of this character have no place in proceedings before the State Industrial Accident Commission nor upon appeal from its decisions. Moreover, by section 56 of article 101, Code Pub. Gen.

Laws (Supp. 1929), repealed and reenacted by Laws 1935, ch. 545, it is provided that “any employer, * * * beneficiary or person feeling aggrieved by any decision of the Commission affecting his interests * * * may have the same reviewed by a proceeding in the nature of an appeal and initiated in the Circuit Court of the county or in the Common Law Courts of Baltimore City having jurisdiction over the place where the accident occurred or over the person appealing from such decision. * * * Upon the hearing of such an appeal the Court shall, upon motion of either party filed with the Clerk of the Court according to the ⁴⁵⁸ practice in civil cases, submit to a jury any question of fact involved in such case.” It is therefore obvious that whether the claimant, at the time she took the appeal, wasi a resident of Baltimore City, was a question of fact,' which she was entitled to have a jury answer, and we feel these attempted