Martin v. Allegany County Board of County Commissioners

WEANT, Judge. Appellant, James R. Martin, Jr., suffered an accidental injury to his back in September of 1980 while employed by the appellee, Allegany County Board of County Commissioners. Appellant was awarded benefits as a result of the accident. Sometime after this he left his county job and began working for the City of Cumberland.

While working for the City, appellant suffered two more accidental injuries to his back: one in February, 1984 and the other in October, 1985. In October, 1985, he sought additional temporary total disability benefits from the Workmen’s Compensation Commission (the Commission) for a period beginning in that month. The record in the present case does not disclose who the parties were before the Commission or what its order was. The Commission’s decision was appealed to the Circuit Court for Allegany County.

On that appeal, a jury answered four special interrogatories as follows: 1. Has the Claimant’s [appellant’s] disability resulting from injuries to his back worsened since July 2, 1985? ⁶⁹⁷ [Yes] 2. Do you find that the present total disability of the Claimant [appellant] is causally related to his accident of September 1980? [Yes] 3. Do you find that the present total disability of the Claimant [appellant] is causally related to his accident of February 1984? [Yes] 4.

Do you find that the present total disability of the Claimant [appellant] is causally related to his accident of October 1985? [Yes] The parties to that circuit court appeal were the County and its insurer as well as the City and its insurer for the February 1984 accident, but, apparently, not the City’s insurer for the October 1985 accident. The County and its insurer moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The trial court denied the motion and remanded the case to the Commission where appellant would be entitled to prove his entitlement, if any, to compensation. No appeal was taken from the jury verdict or the circuit court’s denial of the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

On remand, the parties before the Commission were the County and its insurer, as well as the City and its insurers for both the February 1984 accident and the October 1985 accident. The Commission awarded appellant temporary total disability benefits. The benefits were to be paid entirely by the County (and its insurer) based on the September 1980 accident. No part of the award was apportioned to either of the two subsequent accidents.

The County appealed the Commission’s order to the Circuit Court for Allegany County. The County then filed a motion for summary judgment based on alternative ⁶⁹⁸ grounds: First, that there was insufficient evidence before the Commission for it to find a causal relationship between appellant’s disability and the September 1980 accident; Second, that the Commission’s order was contrary to the jury’s verdict in the first circuit court appeal. The trial court granted summary judgment to the County on the ground that the Commission did not have sufficient evidence before it to find a causal relationship between the September 1980 accident and appellant’s temporary total disability. The appellant now challenges that decision.

Appellant presents only one question on appeal: “Is the temporary total disability of the appellant causally related to the accidental injury of September 4, 1980?” We will agree with appellant that the jury’s finding of a causal relationship between the September 1980 accident and his temporary total disability became the law of the case. Therefore, we will also address the question of whether the Commission’s order on remand was inconsistent with the jury verdict. I. The proposition that the Commission lacked sufficient evidence to find a causal relationship between the September 1980 accident and appellant’s disability assumes that the Commission needed such evidence. It did not.

When the jury in the first circuit court appeal found the existence of such a causal relationship, that finding became the law of the case. Vinci v. Allied Research Associates, 51 Md.App. 517, 523-24 , 444 A.2d 462, 466-67 (1982). The Commission could not ignore or amend the jury’s finding. There was no need for the Commission to take evidence on a matter which had already been decided for it by the circuit court, a higher tribunal.

Therefore, we disagree with the ground relied upon by the circuit court in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment.

II

The jury’s unappealed findings of causal relationships between appellant’s disability and the accidents of ⁶⁹⁹ February 1984 and