Gaithersburg: 301-670-7030
Baltimore: 410-769-5400
Frederick: 301-668-2100
Contact Us For Legal Help

Workers' Compensation Blog

Average Weekly Wage Determinations After Stine v. Montgomery County, MD and Richard Beavers Construction, Inc. v. Wagstaff

Tuesday, April 30, 2019

In the vast majority of workers' compensation claims, the issue of Average Weekly Wage is not contested or litigated and, often, the employer/insurer's counsel does not even submit a wage statement as part of their exhibit packet. In most cases this is not a problem; however, in some situations it can mean the difference of thousands of dollars in indemnity benefits to your client. Blind reliance on the Employer/Insurer's fourteen (14) week wage statement can result in injustices for injured workers. For this reason, it is important to know what tools we, as claimant's attorneys, have at our disposal to ensure a proper and fair calculation of a client's Average Weekly Wage. Two recent 2018 cases from the Court of Special Appeals highlight these opportunities: Richard Beavers Construction, Inc. v. Wagstaff, 236 Md.App. 1 (2018) and Stine v. Montgomery County, MD, 237 Md.App. 374 (2018).

The Basics: L&E 9-602(a) and COMAR 14.09.03.06

Before delving into Wagstaff and Stine, let us briefly review the language from the Workers' Compensation Act dealing with Average Weekly Wage. Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. Sec. 9-602(a) states:

  1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the average weekly wage of a covered employee shall be computed by determining the average of the weekly wages of the covered employee:

    • (i) when the covered employee is working full time; and
    • (ii) at the time of:
      1. the accidental personal injury; or
      2. the last injurious exposure of the covered employee to the hazards of an occupational disease.
  2. For purposes of a computation under paragraph (1) of this subsection, wages shall include:

    • (i) tips; and
    • (ii) the reasonable value of housing, lodging, meals, rent, and other similar advantages that the covered employee received from the employer.
  3. If a covered employee establishes that, because of the age and experience of the covered employee at the time of the accidental personal injury or last injurious exposure to the hazards of the occupational disease, the wages of the covered employee could be expected to increase under normal circumstances, the expected increase may be taken into account when computing the average weekly wage of the covered employee under paragraph (1) of this subsection.

Pursuant to its regulatory powers, the Workers' Compensation Commission (hereinafter "the Commission") enacted COMAR 14.09.03.06 in order to streamline the process of determining the Average Weekly Wage for a claim. This regulation has resulted in the "Fourteen (14) Week Wage Statement" that all workers' compensation practitioners have become familiar with. However, it is important to note (and is of particular relevance to the Court of Special Appeals' decision in Stine) that this regulation only places a requirement on the employer/insurer to file the wage statement "as soon as practicable". It does not create any sort of presumption and definitely does not limit the Commission's discretion under the statute to find a different Average Weekly Wage than proffered by the Employer/Insurer. COMAR 14.09.03.06 states, in pertinent part:

  • A. Preliminary Determination. For the purpose of making an initial award of compensation before a hearing in the matter, the Commission shall determine the claimant's average weekly wage from gross wages, including overtime, reported by the claimant on the employee's claim form.
  • B. Filing of Wage Statement. As soon as practicable, the employer/insurer shall file a wage statement containing the following information:
    1. The average wage earned by the claimant during the 14 weeks before the accident, excluding the time between the end of the last pay period and the date of injury, provided that periods of involuntary layoff or involuntary authorized absences are not included in the 14 weeks;
    2. Those weeks the claimant actually worked during the 14 weeks before the accident;
  • Determination at First Hearing.
    1. Calculation of the average weekly wage shall be adjudicated and determined at the first hearing before the Commission.
    2. All parties shall be prepared to produce evidence from which the Commission can determine an accurate average weekly wage at the first hearing.

As gleaned by Subsection A and C (2), as well as appellate case law, this regulation in no way binds the Commission to utilize only the employer/insurer's fourteen (14) week wage statement. Although the Employer/Insurer will often argue that calculation of AWW using only the fourteen (14) weeks is mandatory, the language of the statute, as well as the Regulation itself, suggests otherwise. Moreover, a regulation cannot be read to conflict with, let alone override a statute - (e.g. see Dep't. of Soc. Servs. v. Russell, 159 Md. App. 594, 611 (2004) wherein the Court of Special Appeals stated: "[w]here the language of a statute differs from relevant language in a departmental regulation, the statutory language must control." (emphasis added). For these reasons alone, the fourteen (14) week wage statement provision in the COMAR Regulations does not bind the parties or the Commission to a particular average weekly wage.

The language of COMAR 14.09.03.06 has the potential to lead to confusion as is evident by the Circuit Court's original decision in Stine. For example, the Circuit Court found, after reviewing this same COMAR provision, that "there's only one way to determine it; it is you look at the 14 weeks before the accident, and then it talks about a couple other things, but that's where I believe that the COMAR and the Commission was restricted to find." As set out below, this mistaken interpretation was reversed by the Court of Special Appeals.

The Facts - Stine

On March 26, 2016, Mr. Stine, who was a volunteer emergency medical technician (EMT) for Montgomery County, MD fell while stepping off of his assigned ambulance and injured his right foot and ankle. He was transported to the Emergency Department where he was diagnosed with a fracture, was splinted, and subsequently discharged. He underwent surgery on the ankle approximately a month later and was out of work for a couple months.

As a volunteer for a "fire or rescue company," Mr. Stine's Average Weekly Wage was governed by Lab. & Employ. Art. 9-602(g) , which directs the Commission to look to his wages earned by "other employment." In addition to volunteering as an EMT for the County, Mr. Stine worked part-time for LifeStar Response as a private EMT during the school year (he was also a college student) and full-time during his summer breaks. Consequently, for the purposes of Sec. 9-602(g), his LifeStar wages counted as the wages earned from "other employment".

Sec. 9-602(g) states: "(g)(1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, for the purpose of computing the average weekly wage of an individual who is a covered employee under § 9-234 of this title, the wages of the covered employee shall be:

  • (i) for a covered employee who received a salary or wages from other employment at the time of the accidental personal injury or last injurious exposure, the salary or wages from the other employment; or
  • (ii) for a covered employee who did not receive a salary or wages from other employment at the time of the accidental personal injury or last injurious exposure:
    1. if the covered employee derived income from a source other than salary or wages at the time of the accidental personal injury or last injurious exposure, an amount that allows the maximum compensation under this title;
    2. if the covered employee was not engaged in a business enterprise at the time of the accidental personal injury or last injurious exposure, the weekly income last received by the covered employee when engaged in a business enterprise; or
    3. if the covered employee had never been engaged in a business enterprise at the time of the accidental personal injury or last injurious exposure, an amount that allows the minimum compensation under this title."

As previously mentioned, Mr. Stine was also a full-time college student working on a nursing degree, which is why he could only work part-time for LifeStar during the school year. As a result, his weekly wages earned during the school year were less than what he earned during the summer- e.g. his fourteen (14) week earnings prior to the March 26, 2016 were not representative of what he earned over the full year.

After a hearing before the Commission in July 2016 on the issue of Average Weekly Wage, the Commission found Mr. Stine's Average Weekly Wage to be Sixty-Four Dollars and Sixty-Five Cents ($64.65), which was the gross weekly average of the wages earned by Mr. Stine for the fourteen (14) weeks preceding his March 26, 2016 work-injury when he worked only part-time for LifeStar. Mr. Stine thereafter took a de novo appeal to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to present evidence on two alternative theories: (1) that the Commission should have utilized a fairer fifty-two (52) week time period to determine his average weekly wage based off his yearly earnings rather than just when he was working part-time; or (2) that because of his age and experience, Sec. 9-602(a)(3) allowed for a finding of an Average Weekly Wage consistent with Mr. Stine's anticipated wages since his wages with LifeStar Response were "expected to increase under normal circumstances."

The Circuit Court Proceedings

Mr. Stine requested a de novo petition for judicial review and a jury trial before the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. A de novo review permits a party to present more, less, or the same amount of evidence than was presented before the Commission. See Bd. of Educ. for Montgomery Cty. v. Spradlin, 161 Md. App. 155, 193, 867 A.2d 370, 393 (2005). To this end, Mr. Stine presented two separate and additional types of evidence, each in support of his two alternative theories.

In regards to his first theory -of utilizing the entire fifty-two (52) weeks rather than just the fourteen (14) weeks prior to his injury- Mr. Stine presented evidence of his yearly wages, via his 2015 W-2 Form. It showed his wages earned throughout the year, both when working full-time in the summer months and part-time in the school year. We argued that since he was injured in March, during the school year, his fourteen (14) week average weekly wage was not an accurate representation of his earning capacity at the time of the injury. On the contrary, a broader fifty-two (52) week period would have led to a more accurate calculation of his average wages. Alternatively, if the Court were to account for only his wages when "working full time" during the summer, it would be more in compliance with the explicit language of Sec. 9-602(a)(1).

With regard to his second theory - because of his age and experience his average weekly wage should be what he was expected to earn in the future - Mr. Stine retained a vocational expert. The testimony proffered was what his average weekly wage was "expected to increase" to upon completion of his nursing degree or while working as a full-time EMT, pursuant to Sec. 9-602 (a)(3).

Prior to trial, Montgomery County moved in limine to exclude the vocational expert on the grounds that Sec. 9-602(a)(3) was not applicable as Sec. 9-602(g) exclusively governed this case. The Circuit Court granted this motion. Next, the County moved to strike Mr. Stine's jury demand arguing that the issue of average weekly wage was a legal question alone. The Circuit Court also granted this motion finding that the Commission was "restricted to find" the average weekly wage was only based upon the fourteen (14) week period prescribed in COMAR. In the alternative, the Circuit Court also stated that, even if COMAR permitted other evidence, the Commission did not abuse its discretion in ignoring it. Mr. Stine thereafter took an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. After the Circuit Court's judgment, but prior to oral argument, the Court of Special Appeals handed down the Wagstaff decision touching upon the same average weekly wage issue.

The Wagstaff Decision

In its Stine decision, the Court of Special Appeals had the opportunity to revisit and expand on its recent decision in Richard Beavers Construction, Inc. v. Wagstaff, 236 Md.App. 1 (2018), which was issued after the Circuit Court's judgment in Stine, but before oral arguments. Both cases involved situations which exemplified why, in some instances, an employer/insurer's wage statement does not result in a just or accurate average weekly wage calculation for an injured worker and why claimant's counsel has to be vigilant in exploring all possibilities.

Wagstaff concerned an injured worker who was injured six weeks into his employment. Although he had been hired to work forty (40) hour week, during the first six weeks of his employment he never worked a full forty hours as inclement weather prevented a full work week. The employer submitted a six-week wage statement which calculated his average weekly wage based upon those six shortened weeks. The claimant countered that his average weekly wage should be based upon what his wages would have been for a full forty (40) hour week for which he was hired to work. The claimant prevailed before the Commission and in the circuit court on summary judgment.

The employer/insurer thereafter appealed to the Court of Special Appeals arguing that both the Commission and the circuit court erred in ignoring, what the employer/insurer believed to be, the "plain reading" of Labor & Employ. Sec. 9-602(a)(1) and COMAR 14.09.03.06. In their incorrect reading, the employer/insurer argued that the average weekly wage could only be determined based upon "wages actually earned." The Wagstaff Court stoutly refused to go along with the employer/insurer's interpretation and, in refuting this analysis, highlighted the benevolent purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act:

"Little imagination is needed to think of scenarios in which an inflexible requirement tying an injured employee's compensation to pre-accident earnings would subvert the goal of compensating employees for lost earning capacity. Suppose that, immediately after an employee's first day of full-time work, an event such as a natural or manmade disaster shut down the place of employment for a few weeks, in which the new employee received no pay; then, immediately upon the employee's return, the employee became disabled in a workplace injury. In such a scenario, an average of actual earnings during the weeks before the injury would not accurately represent what the employee normally would earn from that employer under the contract that was existing at the time of the injury. This unfortunate employee would certainly suffer financial hardship if the employee's compensation were strictly computed by dividing the actual gross earnings by the number of weeks since being hired. In many situations involving recently-hired employees, the rule proposed by RBCI and its insurer would violate the principle that the Act should be construed "to afford substantial, and not merely nominal, relief[.]" Merrill v. State Military Dep't, 152 Md. at 478, 136 A. 897."
Wagstaff, 236 Md. App. 1, 20, 180 A.3d 211, 222–23 (2018)

As a result, the Court held that, in determining a claimant's average weekly wage, the Commission is not confined to only using the actual wages of the injured worker during the weeks preceding the date of injury, but may look to what the claimant would have earned during those same weeks if not for circumstances outside the worker's control such as weather or sickness. Put simply, the employer/insurer's wage statement is not the final word on the average weekly wage of a claim. The Wagstaff opinion reminds us that the employer/insurer's wage statement is just one in several pieces of evidence that may be presented to the Commission and by no means establishes any sort of "presumption." To this point, the Stine Court not only highlighted, but further enhanced this principle.

The Stine Decision

The Stine Court split its opinion by reversing the Circuit Court on its flawed interpretation of the COMAR fourteen (14) week "rule" and remanding the case back for a jury trial (thereby reaffirming that average weekly wage is a factual issue ripe for submission to a jury which the claimant properly requested). This last point has possible implications for de novo requests for jury trials, discussed further below. Despite ruling in favor of the claimant on this issue, the Stine Court also, however, affirmed the Circuit Court's exclusion of Mr. Stine's vocational expert stating that, at least here, Sec. 9-602(a)(3) was not applicable.

First, the Stine Court found that the Circuit Court erred by denying Mr. Stine's request for a jury trial. Once again, on appeal to the Circuit Court, the Claimant had requested a de novo judicial review and jury trial. In addition to his vocational expert, Mr. Stine sought to present his fifty-two (52) week W-2 form as more reliable evidence of his average weekly wage to a jury. As mentioned above, parties on appeal from the Commission may introduce more, less, or the same evidence than at the underlying Commission hearing. By striking his jury trial demand and finding that the issue of the time period used to calculate an average weekly wage (ie. fourteen (14) weeks versus fifty-two (52) weeks) was a legal determination, the Circuit Court denied Mr. Stine the opportunity to do that. The Court of Special Appeals appropriately found this to be a mistake and appropriately reversed this judgment:

"First, we disagree that COMAR 14.09.03.06 compelled the Commission to calculate the average weekly wage from a fourteen-week sample. As we recently clarified in Wagstaff (which was decided after the circuit court's decision), that regulation "does not purport to restrict the Commission in any manner from utilizing a different time period [than fourteen weeks] if the Commission deems it appropriate to do so." 236 Md. App. at 24–25, 180 A.3d 211 (quoting Gross v. Sessinghause & Ostergaard, Inc., 331 Md. 37, 50, 626 A.2d 55 (1993) ). And indeed, the regulation contains nothing requiring the fourteen-week time period in all cases… the regulation does not restrict the determination of average weekly wage to that time period, and allows the Commission to consider other evidence in setting the average weekly wage at a hearing, if one is held. COMAR 14.09.03.06(C); see Wagstaff, 236 Md. App. at 24–25, 180 A.3d 211. (emphasis added)"
Stine v. Montgomery Cty., 237 Md. App. 374, 386–87, 185 A.3d 826, 833–34 (2018).

Moreover, the Court found that this issue is factual in nature and so the Claimant's request for a jury trial must be honored. As such, the issue of whether the fourteen (14) weeks or the fifty-two (52) week periods should be used as a basis for his average weekly wage was remanded back to a jury trial. In a statement that has implications far beyond just the average weekly wage issue, the Stine Court stated:

"Mr. Stine had filed his petition for judicial reviews, then a request for a jury trial, which transformed the procedural posture of the case to an essential trial de novo, which means the Commission's decision was not subject to review by the circuit court."
Id at 388, 835.

With regards to the Court affirming the Circuit Court's decision to exclude Mr. Stine's vocational expert, the Court held that because Mr. Stine, as a volunteer EMT, fell under Sec. 9-602(g), a special subsection applicable only to volunteer fire fighters, EMTS and paramedics, and this subsection "does not contain any language referring back to the computation method or principles outlined in (a)." Consequently, Mr. Stine's evidence (i.e. expert testimony) that his wages were "expected to increase" due to his anticipated nursing degree and hands-on work experience as an EMT for both LifeStar Response and Montgomery County were not applicable under these circumstances. Importantly, the Court did not indicate that this testimony would not otherwise be relevant if this case had not fallen under subsection (g)'s narrow application to volunteer EMTs. In other words, this opinion does not preclude another claimant from utilizing similar vocational expert evidence under subsection (a)(3).

Conclusion: The Implications of the Stine and Wagstaff Decisions

The most important takeaways from Stine and Wagstaff involve the ability of the Commission to consider any and all kinds of evidence relevant to the issue of average weekly wage. It is not bound to the fourteen (14) week wage statement. The Employer's Wage Statement is just one piece of evidence among many that might be presented. Moreover, even when utilizing the wage statement, it might not accurately represent the claimant's earning capacity if it does not account for days missed due to inclement weather, illness or other situations which preclude an employee firm working full time. Beyond that, the Commission can utilize other time periods, such as a fifty-two (52) week period represented by a tax return or W-2 Form, in determining a more reliable and fair average weekly wage.

The Stine opinion also illuminates one more important principle that goes beyond just the average weekly wage issue and covers any de novo workers' compensation appeal. Put simply, where a party requests a de novo judicial review and a jury trial on any disputed factual issue, the circuit court must proceed with a jury trial on that factual issue.

If you have any questions or require assistance with your work-related injury or illness, please do not hesitate, contact Matthew Engler, Esq. today at 301-740-3322 or mengler@bsgfdlaw.com.

Workers’ Compensation Claims Process - How long does it take to get a hearing and what is a “consideration date?

Friday, July 14, 2017

One of the most common questions I receive from clients concerns how long it takes to get a hearing before the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission. As with any court or judicial body, the Commission sets its own schedule and the claimants and attorneys appearing before it are subject to that schedule. Generally speaking, however, it is a safe assumption that your hearing will be scheduled within three to four months from the date you file your claim or request a hearing. This can vary based on your hearing venue. For example, hearings are scheduled much quicker in Baltimore or Beltsville (the hearing sites with a higher volume and where hearings are held more frequently), than in La Vale or Cambridge (where hearings are held less frequently based on a lesser volume).

What is the “Consideration Date?”

The claim process begins when you file an “Employee Claim Form” with the Commission. This document asks you basic demographic and injury-specific questions. Once this is submitted, the Commission will send a Notice of Claim to your employer and your employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, referred to as the insurer. On the bottom-right of this Notice of Claim, you will find a “Consideration Date,” which is typically about a month from the date your original Employee Claim Form was filed. Your employer and insurer have until this date to either accept or contest your claim. If they contest the claim, they will file Contesting Issues with the Commission and you will have to wait for a hearing to present the evidence of your work-related injury or illness. You cannot request a hearing on your own behalf until after the “consideration date,” has passed. That’s why it is so important to file your claim as soon as possible.

My Employer and Insurer filed Contesting Issues; what next?

When your employer and insurer file Contesting Issues, they are, in effect, opposing the claim until the Commission can hold a hearing to determine the validity of your claim. As stated above, this will typically be scheduled anywhere between three to four months from the date your claim is initially filed. At this first hearing, you will be called upon to testify and present evidence of your work-related injury or illness, including medical records supporting your claim. After the hearing, the Commissioner will decide whether or not your injury or illness is covered by the workers’ compensation laws of Maryland. However, up until that time, you will not be able to recover any workers’ compensation benefits such as temporary total disability. You may or may not receive medical coverage. For this reason, it is all the more urgent that you consult with an attorney to determine your options and to prepare for this hearing.

How can my hearing be scheduled on an emergency basis?

In some circumstances, you can request the Commission to schedule your hearing sooner based on an “emergency” situation. For example, if you are unable to work on account of your injury or illness and have received collection notices on past-due bills or if you require emergency medical treatment, then the Commission may schedule your hearing sooner, within a matter of weeks rather than months. However, you must submit documents to support the urgency and these requests are not always granted.

If you have any questions or require assistance with your work-related injury or illness, please do not hesitate, contact Matthew Engler, Esq. today at 301-740-3322 or mengler@bsgfdlaw.com.

Victory for Montgomery County Police Officer

Thursday, February 09, 2017

After a two-day jury trial, Attorney Matthew Engler won a case for a Montgomery County police officer who seriously injured his knee at work and thereafter required a knee replacement. The officer had several prior injuries to the same knee, some work-related and some not; however, Attorney Engler was able to persuade the jury that the latest injury, which was a work-injury, had so aggravated his knee condition and so accelerated the need for a knee replacement that his Employer (the County) was legally responsible for the surgery.The two-day trial involved the exhaustive expert testimony of two orthopedic surgeons as the County argued, unsuccessfully, that the knee replacement was due entirely to the pre-existing knee condition.

In order to be covered by workers’ compensation, medical treatment has to be: (1) reasonable, (2) necessary, and (3) causally-related, at least in part, to the work-injury. The third element, causal relationship, is the most heavily litigated of the three. However, it is the long-established law of Maryland that the presence of a pre-existing condition does not bar workers’ compensation benefits. In fact, “[i]f the accidental injury has accelerated or aggravated an existing disease or infirmity, the claimant is entitled to disability.”Reeves Motor Co. v. Reeves, 204 Md. 576, 582 (1954). Therefore, even if an injured worker would have required a particular treatment in the unspecified future, a work-injury could accelerate the need for that treatment to such an extent that the treatment is causally-related to the work-injury and, therefore, covered by workers’ compensation.

If you have any questions regarding a work-injury or work-related illness, do not hesitate to speak to an attorney and learn your rights. Attorney Matthew Engler stands ready to assist you and offers free consultations for all injured workers. Contact him at 301-740-3322 or mengler@bsgfdlaw.com.

Why Should I File A Claim With The Workers’ Compensation Commission If My Employer’s Insurance Is Already Paying For My Doctor?

Tuesday, October 04, 2016

Attention Injured Workers! There is a huge difference between filing a workers’ compensation claim with the Workers’ Compensation Commission and your employer’s insurance company. Many injured workers do not realize this and may miss out on all the other benefits entitled to them under the law if they had only filed their claim with the Commission. The benefits that you may miss out on include:

 
- ONLY by filing a claim with the Commission do you have access to lifetime medical coverage for your injury, with NO copays;
- ONLY by filing a claim with the Commission do you have access to compensation for permanent impairment suffered from your injury, even if you return to work or it is only a scar;
- ONLY by filing a claim with the Commission do you have access to vocational rehabilitation services if your injury prevents you from returning to your prior job;
- ONLY by filing a claim with the Commission can you fight your employer’s insurance company when they deny medical treatment or compensation for lost wages;
- And much more…
 
Additionally, there is no cost or fee associated with filing a claim either. You normally must file within two years of the date of injury, so time is often of the essence. Do not be subject to the whims of your employer’s insurance company: take charge of your recovery and contact Attorney Matthew Engler today for a free consultation.

 

Why Workers Compensation’ For Police Is More Important Than Ever Before

Tuesday, October 04, 2016

Police officers are not only covered for accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of their employment, but they are also covered for occupational diseases arising from the unique hazards of their employment such as heart disease, hypertension, and hearing loss. Maryland law presumes that the heart disease or hypertension developed from the officer’s stressful employment. This presumption is based upon medical evidence that police officers, due to their many pressures and responsibilities, have a greater risk of heart disease and hypertension than the general public.

When choosing a workers' compensation attorney, it is important to go with an attorney who, “backs the blue.” Attorney Matthew Engler, a former Maryland State’s Attorney, now practices workers’ compensation with BSGFD and devotes his attention to the needs of Maryland police officers. From his experience as a prosecutor, he knows how difficult policing is today and fully appreciates the sacrifices made every day by our men and women in blue. Contact Attorney Matthew Engler today for a free consultation.

Why should I file a Workers’ Compensation Claim if my Employer’s insurance is already covering my medical bills?

Friday, September 23, 2016

There is a BIG difference between filing a claim with the Workers’ Compensation Commission and filing a claim with your employer’s insurance policy. As Attorney Al Gross discussed in his recent blog post, submitting a “First Report of Injury” or other worksheet to your employer or employer’s insurance is NOT the same thing as filing a claim with the Workers’ Compensation Commission. The difference between the two is huge and your employer’s insurance company has no obligation to tell you what they are.

When a claim is filed with the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission, many rights and benefits are secured under Maryland law, including but not limited to:

  1. Lifetime medical benefits for all treatment that is reasonable, necessary and causally-related to your work-injury;
  2. Awards that compensate you financially for any permanent disability you may have as a result of your work-injury;
  3. Vocational rehabilitation benefits if, because of your injury, you are no longer able to perform your prior job duties because you are under permanent work restrictions;
  4. Reopening your case for additional monetary benefits if your condition worsens Depending on your case, there are other benefits which may apply to you. In order to better understand the Workers’ Compensation law of Maryland and your status, contact Attorney Matthew Engler for a free consultation.

Depending on your case, there are other benefits which may apply to you. In order to better understand the Workers’ Compensation law of Maryland and your status, contact Attorney Matthew Engler for a free consultation.

I injured myself at work – why did my employer’s insurance deny my claim?

Friday, September 23, 2016

Simply getting injured at work doesn’t guarantee you any benefits or rights under the law, unless you file an accepted claim with the Workers’ Compensation Commission. Many injured workers only file paperwork with their employer or employer’s insurance company without ever realizing that this is NOT the same thing as a workers’ compensation claim. When you proceed in this manner, it is a private transaction between you and your employer’s insurance. Unfortunately, in countless instances, the insurance company will deny medical coverage and disability payments leaving the injured worker on their own without any help and without any options.

Secure Your Rights and Benefits

However, when you file a claim with the Workers’ Compensation Commission, not only do you secure all the rights and benefits guaranteed under the law , but you also secure the right to present your case to a Commissioner who has the authority to order your employer’s insurance to pay for treatment and disability payments, even when they initially denied it. The Workers’ Compensation Commission was established specifically to litigate injured worker claims and to ensure compliance with the workers’ compensation laws of Maryland. Nevertheless, you MUST first file a claim with the Commission in order to secure jurisdiction for your work-injury.

Get Help...Contact Matt

If you have any questions regarding your status under the law, please contact Attorney Matthew Engler for a free consultation.

Recent Posts


Tags

Accident Report Attorney Nicole Lambdin Unemployment Benefits Denial Claims Process Damages Police Officers Dependent Medical Permanent Disability Workers Compensation for Police Officers Injured School Bus Drivers Independent Medical Evaluation Attorney Ken Berman MSEA Occupational Hazards auto accident attorney Workers Compensation Claim Attorney Alan Gross Average Weekly Wage Attorney Lauren Pisano Attorney Robert Hagans DC Workers' Compensation Occupational Diseases Maryland Workers Compensation Procedure Prescription Medication Side Effects Work Related Injury Temporary Total Disability Physical Training Injuries for Firefighters Liabililty workers Compensation Act Maryland Workers Compensation Commissioners Maryland Workers' Compensation Claim – Is My Injury Covered? Injured Fire Fighters Attorney Ari Laric attorney Natalie Whittingham Attorney Gretchen Rogers Laws and Regulations Personal Injury Vocational Rehabilitation Benefits Workers Compensation for Firefighters Medical Travel Expense Firefighters Maryland Fire Fighters Railroad Injuries Transportation Reimbursement Teachers Benefits Attorney Matthew Engler MSPRC Attorney Matt Darby Medicare and Workers Compensation Attorney Allyson Bloom Maryland Workers Compensation Hearing Opioids Fire Fighters Attorney Charles Schultz Workers Compensation and Bankruptcy Criteria Maryland Workers Comp Incident Report Injured Courier Worker Workers’ Comp Attorney Wrongful Death Claim Workers Compensation Fraud Death Benefits Disability Insurance Mileage Reimbursement Vocational Rehabilitation Attorney Julie Mirman Corrections Officers Workers Compensation Lawyer injured railroad workers FMLA Auto Injury Auto Accidents National Holidays Maryland Lawyer Coming and Going rule, D.C. attorney Coming and Going rule Attorney Cliff Sobin Workers Compensation Benefits for Teachers Veterans Workers Compensation win for 911 dispatcher Injury Report Firefighters and Hearing Loss

Archive

RSS

What Our Clients Say

Known for our unwavering commitment to clients, for our integrity, and for delivering the best results, our clients continue to refer their friends, families and neighbors to us for their legal needs.


"One year ago today I made the call to your office. The best decision I could make. I wanted to share with you how impressed I am with your staff and your professionalism."

Heather P.


"Craig did a great job representing me! He's the lawyer I have trusted with my legal needs because he's professional, knowledgeable, and keeps me informed about my case."

Jaclyn K.


" wanted to thank you, in writing, for your kindness and prompt response. Customer service is a dying art, and you gave me hope for my family."

Karla


"I would like to express my gratitude for your efforts and dedication for my disability case. It's has been quite a long and upsetting process but you have handled my case in an extremely competent and responsible manner."

Leo H.


"I have recommended Mr. Feldman to several of my friends and colleagues and have heard nothing but excellent reviews. He is the best lawyer I have ever used."

Martin


"I received the check today. I could not believe it until I saw the check. Thank you so much. You have improved my family's quality of life tenfold."

Mike F.


"These guys go above and beyond! They always have your best interest in mind."

Mike W.


"I would like to express my thanks to Amanda Knott and Gretchen Rogers for their patience with me through my ordeal with my workers comp claim. I was impressed from the very beginning when I spoke with G. Rogers on the phone and although she did not have to, she met with me personally and walked me through the steps of what to expect in this process."

Mr Sagal


"You have been kind throughout this process and I appreciate your professionalism as well as your gentle concern. Thanks for helping us and all the others who need your legal expertise. We are grateful."

Nancy F.


"Thanks to Mr. Shultz's aggressive and professional work ethic style I was able to receive the medical services and compensation pertaining to my case."

Navdeep C.


"I can honestly say this firm is simply TOP NOTCH! They not only have handled countless cases for my members that require their services, they also have gone well beyond their "scope" to help some of my folks in other areas of need. "

Rick H.


"I wanted to compliment your law firm on having Amanda Knott as a paralegal. She worked tirelessly for almost 2 years making sure I understood what was happening and at the same time keeping all my records straight and in order, which allowed Gretchen Rogers to represent me in the best way possibl"

Terrye G


"The attention and professional care the staff has taken toward my needs has always been excellent. I have no complaints nor worries that my issues discussed are not addressed."

Tim T.


"I just got off the phone with Craig and let him know how thankful we are to you, him and Ken for all your efforts – you are all really terrific to work with!"

Val K.


Locations Throughout Maryland, Virginia & Washington DC

Gaithersburg Office

481 N. Frederick Avenue, Suite 300
Gaithersburg, MD 20877
301-670-7030 / 800-248-3352
Fax: 301-670-9492

Lutherville Office

1301 York Road, Suite 600
Lutherville, MD 21093
410-769-5400 / 800-248-3352
Fax: 410-769-9200

Frederick Office

30 W. Patrick Street, Suite 105
Frederick, MD 21701
301-668-2100 / 800-827-2667
Fax: 301-668-2000


TOP