eNotes: Workers’ Compensation – August 2024 – Maryland

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Maryland Case Summary

In Re: Robert Butler
Appellate Court of Maryland – Unreported
Number 1700, September 2022 Term

Decided: June 14, 2024

Background

The Claimant, a driver of heavy vehicles, alleged he sustained either an occupational exposure to toxic fumes, or an accidental injury resulting in breathing problems, on February 10, 2019. He asserted that on that date he was exposed to antifreeze fumes while he was employed with the Employer. He allegedly sought treatment for chronic sinusitis. In March of 2019 Claimant changed jobs and became a delivery driver, during which he was exposed to diesel and other chemical fumes. Claimant filed a claim against both Employers. The first Employer contested its liability for benefits. The WCC denied compensability of a claim for occupational disease against the first Employer finding that it was not the employer of last injurious exposure. As to Claimant’s argument that he had sustained an accidental injury on 2/20/2019 that was later diagnosed in 2020, the WCC found that there was insufficient expert medical opinion of a causal link between the alleged incident of 2/10/2019 and the later diagnosis. The Circuit Court granted the first Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that an occupational disease could not be brought as the first employer was not the employer of last injurious exposure. The Court further found that the Claimant’s expert medical opinion was equivocal about a causal relationship between an accidental injury on 2/10/2019 and the 2/2020 diagnosis of chronic sinusitis.

Holding

An occupational disease will only be sustained when it was incurred due to the hazardous conditions of the occupation AND when filed against the Employer with the last injurious exposure. Additionally, complex medical questions, like the causal relationship of a disability to a workplace incident, require clear expert testimony in the form of medical opinions. The Court also confirms the viability of arguing an alternative cause of action: accidental injury OR occupational disease, based on one dated incident.

Takeaway

The Appellate Court clarified that even with an occupational exposure while at one Employer, an occupational disease will only be considered against the Employer with the last injurious exposure.

Questions about this case can be directed to Ruth M. D. Jacobs at (443) 641-0573 or rjacobs@tthlaw.com.