Robin Express, Inc. v. Cuccaro

Hammond, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal is by Robin Express, Inc., the employer, from an order of the Baltimore City Court dismissing its appeal from an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission dated March 3, 1966, which refused its motion for a rehearing and affirmed a previous order of the Commission dated November 23, 1965, granting the appellee Cuccaro, the employee, additional temporary total and permanent partial disability compensation. Robin Express, Inc., was twice notified of the hearing which preceded the award of November 23 but did not respond on either occasion and was not present when that hearing was held. When its motion for reopening of the case under Code (1957), Art. 101, § 40 (c), was denied, it appealed to and filed a petition in the Baltimore City Court, alleging that it had requested a new hearing at which to present testimony that it was not and Davidson Trucking Company was Cuccaro’s employer, and that the Commission had denied its motion and affirmed its order of November 23, and asking that the court remand the case for the taking of testimony to establish the true employer.

Judge Sklar ruled: “From the various authorities submitted by the employer, it is evident that there is a broad power given the Commission to reopen but the right of appeal from a refusal to reopen is limited to situations involving ²⁶⁴ aggravation, diminution, or termination of an injury [under § 40 (b)]. This type of situation is not involved in the case at bar [which arises under § 40 00],” and dismissed the appeal. We think he acted correctly. In Charles Freeland v. Couplin, 211 Md. 160 , the Commission had reopened the case under § 40 (c) [then § 53] of Art. 101 and then affirmed its previous order which had not been effectively appealed from.

The lower court entertained the appeal and the jury held for the