Harris v. Board of Education
375 Md. 21, 2003 Md. LEXIS 309, 825 A.2d 365 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injury is an 'accidental injury' under the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act if the injury itself is an unexpected and unforeseen result of a work activity. The work activity that caused the injury does not need to be 'unusual' for the injury to be compensable.
Facts:
- Vernell Harris was employed by the Howard County Board of Education as a Food and Nutritional Service Assistant, and her regular duties included lifting boxes weighing approximately 35 pounds.
- On January 25, 1999, Harris and a co-worker were performing their typical end-of-day laundry duties.
- They discovered that a 45-pound box of laundry detergent was infested with cockroaches.
- To prevent contamination of the kitchen, Harris and her co-worker dragged the heavy box outside.
- After moving the box, they pulled the bag of soap powder out, took it back inside, and placed it in a lower container.
- Harris bent down once to scoop some soap into a cup, and upon bending down a second time to tie the bag, her back 'cracked,' causing severe pain and rendering her unable to stand or sit.
Procedural Posture:
- Vernell Harris filed a claim with the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission.
- The Commission found that Harris had sustained a compensable accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment.
- The employer, Howard County Board of Education, filed an action for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Howard County (a trial court).
- Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the employer.
- The trial judge denied Harris's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.
- Harris (appellant) appealed to the Court of Special Appeals (Maryland's intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the circuit court's judgment.
- Harris (petitioner) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court), which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the definition of 'accidental injury' under the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act require the injury to result from an 'unusual activity' performed by the employee?
Opinions:
Majority - Eldridge, Judge
No. The definition of 'accidental injury' under the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act does not require that the injury result from an 'unusual activity.' The plain language of the statute contains no 'unusual activity' requirement; it only requires that the injury be 'accidental,' meaning unexpected or unintended, and that it arise out of and in the course of employment. The prior, judicially-created 'unusual activity' requirement improperly added language to the statute, created inconsistent and conflicting lines of case law, and made Maryland a distinct minority outlier in the nation. This requirement contravenes the liberal and benevolent purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act, which is to be construed in favor of the injured employee. Therefore, the line of cases beginning with Slacum v. Jolley that established the 'unusual activity' requirement is overruled.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant shift in Maryland's workers' compensation law, expressly overruling decades of precedent that had created a major barrier to recovery for injured employees. By eliminating the 'unusual activity' requirement, the court simplified the definition of 'accidental injury' and brought Maryland law in line with the overwhelming majority of other jurisdictions. The ruling lowers the burden of proof for claimants, particularly in cases involving strains, sprains, and other injuries arising from routine exertion. Consequently, the focus of future litigation will shift from the nature of the employee's activity to whether the resulting injury was unexpected and causally connected to the employment.
