The Court of Appeals has put to
rest a dispute on the ramifications of a subsequent,, unrelated event in a
workers’ compensation case. In Electrical General Corp. et al. v. Michael
L. Labonte, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion finding a subsequent, intervening, and unrelated event does not necessarily preclude the employer’s
liability for workers’ compensation benefits.
The facts arose out of a work-related
injury in 2004 in which Mr. Labonte injured his back in a work-related
injury. On December 31, 2006, he was
involved in an altercation with a police officer after a traffic stop, which aggravated
his back injury. He filed issues for
treatment in early 2007 after further medical treatment was denied by the
carrier. The Maryland Workers’
Compensation Commission (“Commission”) denied the additional treatment in March
of 2007. There was no appeal.
In October of 2007, Mr. Labonte
filed for permanency and the commission found he had a disability of 30% to his
back, of which 10% was due to pre-existing and subsequent events. Again, there was no appeal.
In 2012, the claimant filed a
Petition to Reopen for a worsening of condition. The Commission denied his claim because the
prior award in March of 2007 found the subsequent injury broke the causal nexus
between his need for treatment and the original injury. The claimant appealed and won in Circuit
Court and the Court of Special Appeals.
The Court of Appeals heard the case for a final decision on the
matter.
The Court of Appeals found the
existence of a prior finding of a subsequent intervening event does not
preclude the Commission from awarding additional permanent partial disability
benefits for a worsening of an employee’s condition. The issue of whether there is a worsening of
condition attributable solely to the work injury is a factual matter for the Commission
to determine in each individual case.
