C & P Telephone Co. v. Scott

WENNER, Judge. Upon this appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County reversing the action of the Worker’s Compensation Commission, we are asked whether there ¹²³ was legally sufficient evidence of employer estoppel to submit that issue to the jury. We shall answer in the affirmative and affirm the judgment of the circuit court. On February 15, 1983, appellee, Sandra Scott, while employed by the appellant, C&P Telephone Company, was injured when she fell on appellant’s parking lot.

Appellee promptly reported the accident to her supervisor, Shirley Palmer, who took her to the hospital. After receiving treatment from the hospital, appellee and Palmer returned to work. In appellee’s presence, Palmer called the C&P benefits office and informed them of the incident. When appellee asked Palmer if there was anything she needed to do, if there were any forms that she needed to fill out, Palmer responded that the forms were coming, that she would fill them out, and that everything would be taken care of.

In response to a similar inquiry from appellee’s mother, Palmer repeated that everything would be taken care of. Thereafter, and continuing for more than two years, appellant paid appellee’s medical bills and lost wages. Having no knowledge of worker’s compensation, and relying on her supervisor’s assurances that everything would be taken care of, appellee did not immediately file a claim with the Worker’s Compensation Commission. Indeed, she did not file a claim until November 1, 1985, twenty-eight months after the Employer’s First Report was filed.

Md.Ann.Code, Article 101, Section 39 provides that “failure of an employee to file a claim for compensation within two years from the date of the accident shall constitute a complete bar” to that claim. Where, however, the employee’s failure to file a claim “was induced or occasioned by fraud, or by facts and circumstances amounting to an estoppel,” the employee has one additional year from the time that the fraud is discovered or the facts and circumstances amounting to an estoppel cease, within which to file a claim. Md.Ann.Code Art. 101, § 39(c). ¹²⁴ Appellee does not claim that she was prevented by fraud from filing a claim; instead, she argues that C & P’s actions amount to an estoppel, barring it from raising limitations as a defense. Equitable Estoppel, as that term is used in the Worker’s Compensation Act, “is the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is absolutely precluded both at law and in equity from asserting rights ... against another person who has in good faith relied upon such conduct and has been led thereby to change his position for the worse.” Patapsco and Back Rivers Railroad Co. v. Davis, 208 Md. 149, 155 , 117 A.2d 566 (1955) (citing Pomeroy’s, Equity Jurisprudence (5th Ed.), Vol. 3, § 804).

Its purpose is “to prevent ¿ party from