Mize v. Victor R. Beauchamp Associates, Inc.

Barnes, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. ⁵⁸⁵ Edd Morrice Mize suffered an injury on November 27, 1964, arising out of and in the course of his employment. He has appealed from the granting of a directed verdict in favor of the employer and its insurer by the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County at the close of the claimant’s case, thereby affirming the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission against the claimant. The sole question in the case is whether a jury could reasonably find that the injury was “accidental” within the meaning of Code, Article 101, sec. 15 and, therefore, compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Mize, a carpenter of 31 years experience, was employed by Beauchamp in the construction of a concrete building.

Carpenters were used to install a wooden framework (form) for the pouring of concrete, a type of work which Mize had done “right much of” in the course of his trade. On November 26 and 27, 1964, Mize’s “particular job was to put up the framing for the roof” of the building. This work was done in the following manner: a framework of parallel joists (beams), spaced 16 inches apart, was erected using 2" x 4"s or 4" x 4"s. Standing or kneeling on a joist, Mize would turn to receive pieces of plywood from a helper who would pass them from below or behind the carpenter.

The plywood was then laid across the joist and secured to it, forming part of a deck, on which concrete later would be poured. Mize would then kneel on a different part of the joist, or on the finished decking, turn to receive more plywood and install it, thus adding to the deck. Where columns w~ere encountered, a “low head” or “drop head” (a recessed level deck, four feet by five feet) was constructed around it, so that the rest of the decking was about five inches higher than the “drop head.” While constructing one of these drop heads, Mize turned to receive a piece of plywood and felt a sharp pain in his lower back. Mize testified that in laying out other drop heads on this job, the plywood had been “shoved up from down below.” At the time of the injury, the plywood was handed to him from behind, but Mize had been required to twist around to get plywood at other times either on the day of the injury or at other times on the job.

Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the claim ⁵⁸⁶ ant, we believe, as did the court below, that a jury could not reasonably have found the injury to Mize’s back was “accidental.” We have often reiterated our strict construction of tire term “accidental injury”: “[It]n Maryland, unlike many other jurisdictions, the phrase ‘accidental injury’ does not include unexpected results not produced by accidental causes, and this Court consistently has held that for injury to be accidental it must result from some unusual strain or exertion of the employee or some unusual condition of the employment.” (Emphasis supplied). Vaughan v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 229 Md. 547, 550-51 , 184 A. 2d 842 (1962) and cases therein cited; Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Golombieski, 231 Md. 124 , 188 A. 2d 923 (1963); Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v. Daniels, 199 Md. 156 , 85 A. 2d 795 (1952); Commercial Transfer Co. v. Quasny, 245 Md. 572 , 227 A. 2d 20 (1967). On the evidence thus far discussed, unlike Golombieski, supra, a jury could not reasonably have found the injury to result from unusual exertion of the employee or some unusual condition of his employment. Mize, as his testimony shows conclusively, was thoroughly accustomed to turning to receive plywood.

He was also completely familiar with the working conditions involved in constructing drop heads, although their construction required “a little extra work” compared to installing the rest of the deck. Introduced at trial, 1 however, was the “Employers’