Blog

A one-of-a-kind recovery center in Maryland does what no other facility in the country can: focuses solely on the mental, emotional, and physical needs of active, injured, and retired firefighters suffering from work-induced post-traumatic stress disorder. The IAFF Center of Excellence for Behavioral Health Treatment and Recovery opened in March of 2017, and has already helped hundreds of firefighters struggling with stereotypical and lesser-known symptoms of PTSD. These include: Flashbacks to traumatic events (for firefighters, these can vary widely, but include massive fires, serious car accidents, body recovery following natural disasters, crime scenes and more) Nightmares A general feeling of fear, worry or anxiety Depression Substance abuse Thoughts of suicide (or previous attempts) Self-harm Panic attacks Avoiding particular locations (not driving by the scene of a car accident where the firefighter recovered the body of a friend, for example, or avoiding the cemetery where victims of a massive fire are buried) Anger, towards oneself and towards others Easy irritability, often without a known cause Feelings of intense guilt The Center treats all these different conditions and symptoms holistically, with various types of group and individual therapy, a focus on personal wellness, and even ongoing treatment from a network of providers after the person’s stay at the facility. The end goal is not to “cure” the PTSD, something psychological experts say may not even be possible, but for the firefighters to learn ways to acknowledge symptoms and learn coping strategies to prevent those symptoms from negatively impacting their lives. We all know that firefighters, like police and other first responders, have a very demanding job, both physically and mentally. They see trauma daily, lose friends in the line of duty, and face potential injury nearly every time they respond to a call. Hopefully, the IAFF Center of Excellence for Behavioral Health Treatment and Recovery will soon not be the only facility in our state – or our country – to focus in on the well-being of these everyday heroes.

At our law firm, we advise injured workers throughout Maryland on Workers’ Compensation issues. A new unreported case from the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland illustrates the complexity of the state Workers’ Compensation Act and the importance of having an experienced lawyer involved at all stages of a claim, if possible. The appeals court issued its opinion in Montgomery County, Maryland v. Peter Gang on August 9. (Available on Westlaw at 2018 WL 3801772.) In 2011, Gang received an accidental injury during his work as a correctional officer for the county. In 2012, the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission after a hearing awarded Gang 70 weeks of benefits at $157 per week for permanent partial disability. The parties agree that this rate was wrong because Gang should have received the higher rate of a public safety officer. Notably, no one at that time asked for rehearing or appealed the mistake to court. Instead, Gang accepted benefits at the wrong rate and four years later, he filed a “Request for Document Correction.” After the parties attempted some complicated procedural maneuvers, the Commission retroactively amended the original award to the rate of $314 per week, not based on the claimant’s request for a document correction, but instead on its “continuing jurisdiction” under the law. The Circuit Court for Montgomery County affirmed this decision, which the Court of Special Appeals then reversed in the unreported opinion. Claimant missed the proper remedy In essence, the court said that the claimant should have asked for reconsideration or filed an appeal within the time allowed when the Commission issued the 2012 decision with the incorrect rate. The claimant also did not follow correct procedures in trying to request a later modification. The court looked at the scope of the Commission’s power to revise earlier actions, concluding that no other bases would allow the Commission to fix the mistake at this late date: The Commission did not modify the award “based on a legal mistake in light of case law.” The Commission was not acting because of a “statutory revision.” The Commission may have been able to correct the rate in a future award, but not a retroactive one. The law would let the Commission adjust a mistaken rate in appropriate cases for future benefits paid if disability had increased or decreased since the original award. The Commission was not just “correcting a clerical error.” The award was final in 2012. The claimant apparently should have filed a different form and gotten employer consent for a modification request. The Commission’s late correction of the rate “impermissibly extended the five-year time limit … exceeding its statutory authority.” The court concluded that the Commission’s power to fix mistakes in awards is “not unlimited,” and that no state law allowed what it had done, unfortunately for this claimant. Everyone agreed that a mistake had been made, but it was too late. It is not clear from the opinion whether Gang had a lawyer at the time of the original decision. We also do not know if it occurred to him to question whether the rate was incorrect back then. Still, this opinion shows the importance of having legal counsel on board as early as possible. An attorney can review not only decisions that deny claims, but also successful decisions to see if the terms are correctly calculated. If not, the claimant can file an appeal or request for rehearing before any deadlines pass.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland released an unpublished opinion illustrating “estoppel” in the context of a late workers’ compensation claim. Estoppel provides relief when someone is legally harmed by reasonably relying on another person’s behavior or statements. Maryland law provides relief by estoppel for certain late-filed Workers’ Compensation claims. Claim deadlines For an accidental work injury, the employee must file with the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission within 60 days of the injury a claim form and a doctor’s report, if applicable. If the employee misses the 60-day deadline, the employee can still file the claim within two years after the injury if the Commission finds no prejudice to the employer or Workers’ Compensation insurer or “another sufficient reason.” If the two-year deadline, called a statute of limitations, is missed, the claim is “completely barred.” However, if the employee missed the deadline because of estoppel or fraud, the employee has a year to file from the day the “facts and circumstances that amount to estoppel ceased to operate” or the day the fraud was discovered. (The law has a separate provision for radiation injury.) Estoppel example In Prince George’s County Board of Education v. Anthony Butler, Butler was a truck driver and warehouseman for the school district. In 2011, he fell and hit his head on cement during a delivery. Another employee helped him complete a public-school Workers’ Compensation injury report form. She said that “everything was taken care of” and that his supervisor would “send it to the workman’s comp office.” Butler said no one told him he needed to fill out anything else. On Butler’s return to work, his supervisor said “everything was taken care of.” Butler said that he relied on these statements. He subsequently had head surgery to repair a broken shunt from the fall. When the bills were not paid, his employer again reassured him that it would be “taken care of.” He eventually sought legal advice when the bills continued unpaid. His lawyer helped him file the claim with the Commission in September 2014, well past the two-year deadline. He asserted the defense of estoppel for filing late based on his reliance on his employer’s statements that everything would be taken care of. The Commission denied the late claim, but on appeal the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County reversed the Commission based on estoppel. In the employer’s appeal, the Court of Special Appeals agreed with the Circuit Court that estoppel should allow Butler’s claim, despite the late filing. The court explained that for estoppel to apply, the claimant must have reasonably relied on the statements of someone who could reasonably be thought to have the authority to speak for the employer. Estoppel prevents the employer from opposing the claim when the worker relied on the conduct in “good faith” and “thereby … changed his position for the worse.” This case illustrates the concept of estoppel, but also shows how complicated Workers’ Compensation law can be. Consult an attorney as early as possible for assistance with your claim, but even if you think it might be too late or that you have missed a deadline, a lawyer can evaluate the situation to see if the law provides relief and provide direction.

Red light cameras (RLCs) have popped up all over the country, including Maryland. No longer do police officers have to sit at intersections and wait for people to blaze through — a camera mounted at the intersection does all the work, monitoring traffic 24 hours a day, taking pictures of violators and passing them along to the ticketing department, who mail out the violations. Cities argue that they make intersections safer and more efficient, not to mention profitable. However, a recent study by the Maryland Department of Transportation complicates this picture, suggesting that in some cases red light cameras can actually lead to an increase in rear-end collisions. What’s Working The study looked at data from 27 intersections over a 10-year period, which captured the behavior of more than 1,000 drivers as they encountered RLC intersections. They compared this information for crash statistics from other intersections without cameras and found that RLC systems tended to reduce side-impact collisions. In addition, this reduction carried over to the neighboring intersections, a so-called “spillover” effect. Even when no cameras were present, drivers tended to modify their behavior and drive more cautiously, stopping on yellow lights more frequently. What’s Not Despite the safety benefits, one area in which RLCs made no impact was rear-end collisions. In fact, depending on the kinds of drivers in the neighborhood, some RLCs increased the likelihood of rear-end collisions. Because some drivers worried about getting a ticket, they’d slam on their brakes, taking other drivers by surprise. While it’s important to keep intersections safe, a percentage of Maryland’s traffic accidents are simply being transferred to other parts of the road. Red light cameras are a fact of life in Maryland, and they aren’t going away anytime soon. Because of that, you need to watch for erratic behavior from other drivers when you’re behind the wheel. Just because someone would ordinarily go through a light doesn’t mean they’ll do the same when there’s a camera around. Keep your eyes open. Increase your following distance. Pay attention to the RLC advanced warning signs. If you can do that, you’ll be able to avoid their unfortunate side effects.

In labor intensive jobs it can feel like injuries are a part of life. While heavy equipment and manual labor are more suited to injury than stationary work, the fact is that many injuries are avoidable with the right training and equipment, regardless what type of work you do. It’s an employer’s job to make your workplace as safe as it can be, in all fields of employment. There were 65,000 reported injuries and illnesses due to work-related causes in the state of Maryland in 2015, enough injuries to populate a small city. Sometimes these injuries are severe, life-changing and even fatal. It affects all industries. While jobs with heavy machinery often field more injuries than other types of work, almost any career runs the risk of injury in a vehicle accident, for example. Exceptions can be deadly Thanks to organizations like OSHA, workplace injuries and illnesses are down significantly since they started tracking them in 1972. While safety equipment and technology play a role, the best way for a workplace to keep safe is to hire the right people and to have the right attitude. It’s not hard to tell when your companies values production over your safety. If they prioritize speed over setup, or are willing to make “one-time exceptions” to safety protocol it sends a message that the task is what matters most. Everyone understands that time is money, but employee safety and serious injuries risk even greater cost. When injuries occur While any injury is bad news, there is good news to help workers recover. Workers’ Compensation is a program available for anyone injured on the job. Through Workers’ Compensation, eligible workers can seek reimbursement for time way from work, including coverage of medical bills and payment for long-term disability. In the event of severe injury, the program also covers rehabilitation and job training costs under certain circumstances. The program sounds simple on the surface: injured workers deserve help and should not have to pay expenses out of their own pocket. However, due to the bureaucratic nature of the program and the many types of injuries or illness that can occur, many do not receive the full benefits they are entitled to. Whenever injury occurs on the job, it is vital for your long-term health and for your career that you get the full coverage you deserve.

Memorial Day has come and gone and summer has officially arrived in Maryland. We are all itching to get out of doors and take advantage of the season. Naturally, our sidewalks and public areas are teeming with people of all ages and abilities out there walking, running, playing and biking, whether using training wheels, three-wheeled bikes, regular bicycles or racers. Also out and about are more wheelchairs and strollers as well as users of walkers and canes. This increase in human activity means that Maryland motorists must take care to drive reasonably for the surroundings and conditions and to comply with traffic laws. More people are around. Seniors and those with disabilities may be slower and children may unexpectedly dart out. Avoid negligent motoring Maryland drivers must take care to drive reasonably to keep pedestrians and bikers safe. Should the driver of a car or truck drive negligently, recklessly or in violation or traffic or criminal laws, should he or she strike a person walking or running or using a bicycle, the driver would be liable for resulting injury, pain and suffering, property damage and wage loss. Last week, we published a post about motorcycle accidents and how a personal injury attorney can help an injured victim or the surviving loved ones of someone who dies in such a crash. In that blog, we talked about how a lawyer will investigate the scenario of a motorcycle accident by using experts in civil engineering and accident reconstruction. The same factors are important in a collision involving a person or bicycle. Careful estimate of comprehensive damages Injuries tend to be so severe in an accident between the human body and a heavy, metal vehicle that medical evidence is also particularly important to establish the extent of an injury, including the current and future need for medical treatment, wage replacement, rehabilitation, therapy, home or car modifications, medical equipment and more. In serious cases, long-term residential care may also be involved. The trauma of a pedestrian accident may also cause mental or emotional harm for which compensation for treatment would be appropriate. Seek the assistance of an attorney as early as possible after such an accident, who will negotiate with involved insurance companies and other parties and file a lawsuit should fair settlement not be possible.

Broadly, injuries that occur during a normal commute to work are normally not covered by Maryland Workers’ Compensation, unless a special exception applies. This concept is called the going-and coming rule. The highest court in Maryland, the Court of Appeals, handed down an opinion on May 21 that sheds light on the special mission or errand exception to the rule. In Calvo v. Montgomery County, the high court explained that to be covered by Workers’ Compensation, an injury must arise out of and in the course of employment. Calvo was a bus driver with 20 years’ experience working for the county. On the way to a mandatory Saturday training that happened once per year, she was injured when her vehicle was rear ended during the journey. Saturday was normally her day off and the training was at a location away from her usual place of work. The court found that the injury arose out of her employment because of the positional risk test, which asks whether but-for an employer’s requirement, the worker would not have been injured. Here, but-for the required training, Calvo would not have been in the accident. Whether an injury occurs in the course of employment looks at the time, place and circumstances vis-à-vis the employment. To be covered, a claimant must be performing work duties or “doing something incident to those duties.” The employer asserted that the injury was not covered because of the going-and-coming rule, but Calvo successfully argued that the special mission exception could apply. Under this exception, an injury is covered during a commute or journey when the travel was done at the direction of the employer and “in furtherance of the employer’s business.” Analysis of whether the special mission exception applies is highly dependent on the unique facts of each case. The Court of Appeals agreed with Calvo because: The trip was mandatory. The journey could be found to be irregular or unusual because it was on her day off at a different location than her usual place of reporting for work. The trip could be found onerous because it was on her normal day off. The court admitted that the case was a close one, but that because a reasonable jury could find in favor of Calvo under these facts, the courts below should not have granted summary judgment. The court reversed and sent the case back for trial.

At our law firm, we represent many Maryland construction workers who have been hurt — often catastrophically — when they fell at work, sometimes from very high elevations. Our lawyers also fight for fair compensation for the surviving loved ones of construction workers who tragically fell in the course of employment, but did not survive. Injured construction workers are eligible for workers’ compensation benefits and survivors for workers’ compensation death benefits. In both kinds of cases, there may also be third parties (other than the employer) who are liable for personal injury or wrongful death. For example, the manufacturer of a defective ladder or dangerously designed scaffolding that collapsed and caused a fall could be liable in a product liability suit. New construction fall data Statistics have recently been released from two different sources that underscore the immensity of fall danger to construction workers. A couple of days ago, an article in Claims Journal described that almost one-third of workers’ compensation claims paid out by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company concerning construction work accidents were for falls. This data was gleaned from more than 10,000 construction-work claims from the last five years. Earlier this year, Safety and Health magazine reported that, over a 33-year time period, 42 percent of construction worker fatalities were from falling, according to new data analysis. Researchers also found that more than half of these workers did not have fall-protection safety equipment. (The article links to a searchable database of government work-related death statistics.) Most of those without “personal fall arrest systems” or PFASs worked in residential construction or in roofing, sheet metal or siding jobs. About one-third of the fatal falls were from heights of at least 30 feet or more. National awareness This week (May 7 through 11, 2018) has been declared the National Safety Stand-Down to Prevent Falls in Construction by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration or OSHA, which is partnering with other governmental and trade groups. The goal is to raise awareness of the dangers of falls and to encourage employers and employees to discuss safety problems and fall prevention practices. We urge all Maryland construction companies and contractors to vigorously comply with all federal and state safety laws to prevent falls. Anyone who experiences a fall in construction work should speak with an attorney as soon as possible about workers’ compensation rights and potential third-party lawsuits.

Beginning last month, Maryland vehicle owners and lessees started receiving specific information about open recalls on their vehicles as part of mailed and emailed annual vehicle registration renewal notices. While having the free repair that is the subject of a recall completed is not required to renew the vehicle registration, it is a smart safety step for a vehicle owner to take. Federal grant funding This new practice is a federally funded pilot program and Maryland is the first, and so far only, state to implement it. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or NHTSA gave the state of Maryland a grant of $222,300 to set up and administer the program. The Maryland Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Administration or MDOT MVA will administer the program and the state has entered into an arrangement with Cox Automotive, Inc., to provide the vehicle recall data. Goal of safer roads The purpose of this program is obviously to make our roads safer by increasing the chances that vehicle owners will have vehicle parts and equipment with known defects repaired or replaced, a free manufacturer service. Notably, MDOT MVA reported in October that only about 70 percent of recall repairs on average are actually completed. Since manufacturers lose track of owners when they move or sell vehicles, current car owners may not actually receive manufacturer recall notices. Since vehicle registration must be renewed annually, this pilot program is a smart way to get the word out about sometimes seriously needed repairs. According to an MDOT MVA press release, car owners and lessees can check for recalls using the vehicle identification number or VIN through an authorized dealership or using a tool on www.nhtsa.gov. Impact of failure to have recall repairs made It is hard to think of a valid excuse for failing to take advantage of a free recall for a known problem, especially a serious one. In fact, if not having the recall-related repair done leaves a vehicle in a dangerous condition and that condition causes a car accident, the failure to respond to the recall notice could be important evidence of potential negligence in a lawsuit for injury or death resulting from the crash.

Every year on April 28, government agencies and unions recognize Workers’ Memorial Day to remember people who have died in the course of employment as well as those who have been injured or become ill from work. It is a day to renew commitment to safe workplaces. April 28 was chosen because it was the date in 1971 when the U.S. Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which established the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, known as OSHA. OSHA is the main federal agency responsible for enforcing workplace safety standards across the country. How is Maryland doing on workplace safety? OSHA has the authority to approve state programs that regulate work safety standards, educate employers and inspect workplaces for violations. In our state, OSHA has approved the Maryland Occupational Safety and Health, called MOSH, to fulfill these important responsibilities. On April 25, Katherine Tracy, a “workers’ rights policy analyst,” wrote an article in the Baltimore Sun about how MOSH is doing in light of this year’s Workers’ Memorial Day observance. Her findings are of great concern: MOSH had fewer staff in 2016 than it had had in seven years. Despite having 2.5 million workers in Maryland, MOSH only conducted around 1,100 workplace inspections in 2016. In 2016, there were 92 work-related fatalities, up from 74 on average annually. Maryland was 49th among states in the average monetary penalty for workplace violations in 2016, according to the AFL-CIO (about $655 on average for serious violations in private employment in Maryland as compared with about $2,280 on average nationally. MOSH is not meeting its responsibilities to protect workers from employer retaliation (like firing or demoting) because workers have reported workplace safety problems to MOSH. Tracy calls for increased state funding for MOSH and for state prosecutors to consider criminal charges against the most egregious employers when their negligent or worse behavior has harmed workers. She notes that Maryland apparently does not do this, but other states do. Legal remedies We represent injured and ill employees in workers’ compensation claims as well as survivors in workers’ compensation death benefit claims. Our lawyers also file third-party personal injury or wrongful death suits when parties other than employers contributed to work injury or death. For example, work equipment could have been defectively designed or without proper warnings of possible danger from use. A landowner or landlord providing work premises may have ignored dangerous conditions on the premises. An employee driving while working could be struck by drunk driver.

With a metropolitan area of about 2.8 million inhabitants — we all know that roadway accidents involving cars, trucks, buses and motorcycles are going to happen in greater Baltimore. Some of these collisions are really accidental and others just fender benders, but when someone negligently or recklessly causes a crash that leaves another driver or a passenger, cyclist or pedestrian with serious injury or even results in death, the at-fault driver is liable in a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit for the victim’s injuries and losses. Factors in Baltimore collisions On April 5, the Baltimore Post-Examiner published a detailed article that takes a deep dive into the circumstances of Baltimore crashes. Three recurring problems are involved: speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and distracted driving such as operating a motor vehicle while texting. Some of the data shared by the Post-Examiner: Dying in a fatal motor vehicle accident will be the number-seven cause of death for Baltimore residents by 2030. Statewide and in Baltimore, crashes are associated with “busy road arteries,” high “population density,” geography, “socio-economic … factors” (like age or gender) and downtown areas. Distractions behind the wheel The three kinds of driving distraction are well known: visual, manual (hands) and cognitive (mental). Mobile-phone use, especially the act of texting, dangerously involves all three kinds of distraction. The Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration, known as MVA, also cites auditory distraction such as listening to music or hearing a voice on a cell phone as a fourth type of driving distraction. The MVA explains that under Maryland law, it is illegal to use a “handheld” phone behind the wheel, including texting and emailing. Certainly, in a lawsuit brought against a driver fined for this offense after having caused an accident at the same time, the citation would be important evidence of negligent or reckless driving behavior.

Firefighters face exposure to toxic chemicals, substances and gases on a regular basis when they run toward danger on all of our behalves. Maryland law presumes that when they get certain diseases in particular circumstances, Workers’ Compensation benefits will be awarded. Firefighter occupational disease presumptions: Heart and lung conditions The law provides that a paid or volunteer firefighter is “presumed to have an occupational disease … suffered in the line of duty … compensable” by Workers’ Compensation if these diagnoses cause partial or total disability or death: Heart disease Hypertension Lung disease Cancers The same eligibility presumption applies to certain cancer diagnoses in some circumstances: Leukemia, or prostate, throat, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, testicular, rectal, multiple myeloma, brain or breast cancer “caused by contact with a toxic substance … encountered in the line of duty” Ten years of fire-fighting service in the department of current service Condition prevents the person from performing his or her normal fire-fighting duties Related matters For the presumption to apply to a diagnosis under either category, a volunteer firefighter, before he or she started duty, must have “met a suitable standard of physical examination.” In some cases, the presumptions may apply even if a firefighter develops a covered illness in retirement. The law also provides that benefits received pursuant to these presumptions are stacked on top of retirement benefits, so both are received (subject to a cap). Otherwise, only one could be received in a period of dual eligibility. In any given claim, the employer, usually a city, municipality or other local government, may choose to oppose the firefighter’s presumption, so legal counsel is important in these cases. Policy behind the presumption The Baltimore Sun recently published an extensive article about the Maryland firefighter presumptions. The piece describes both sides of a debate over this law. Some argue that it is expensive for taxpayers to pay these claims and that in a given case it may not be possible to prove a link the covered cancer or illness to the actual work of firefighting. Some point to conflicting studies. However, the point of a presumption is that when proof is difficult, the law gives the benefit of the doubt to a party for policy reasons. Firefighters put themselves in danger to protect members of our community. This law recognizes that we are going to be on their side when they come down with catastrophic illnesses that could be the result of their brave actions. Maryland is not alone in this choice. According to the Sun, over 30 other states have similar Workers’ Compensation presumptions for firefighters.