Maryland Workers Comp Appeals heard by Juries in Maryland – Jury Instructions

Mr. Landau traveled to Ocean City, Maryland several times for depositions, court hearings and trial for an appeal of a Maryland Workers Compensation claim. His local counsel, Brian Lee, had handled the original hearing before the comp judge, but Landau was prepared to take the case to the jury. Critical to this preparation was his pre-trial submissions to the Worcester County Circuit Court. These included:

1. Requested Jury Instructions

a. MPJI 30:3(a) – Burden of Proof

This case has been heard and decided by the Worker’s Compensation Commission. The employer Construction Company and insurer, Insurance Company, are appealing the decision of the Maryland Workers Compensation Commission.

The Commission determined:

• Plaintiff sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment;
• The disability of Plaintiff’s back is the result of the workplace accident;
• Plaintiff’s average weekly wage was $1,100.00.

This decision is presumed to be correct. The employer and insurer have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision is wrong. In meeting this burden the employer and insurer may rely on the same, less or more evidence than was presented to the Commission.

(a) Preponderance of the Evidence Standard

To prove by a preponderance of the evidence means to prove that something is more likely so than not so. In other words, a preponderance of the evidence means such evidence as, when considered and compared with that opposed to it, has more convincing force and produces in your minds a belief that it is more likely true than not true.

In determining whether a party has met the burden of proof you should consider the quality of all of the evidence regardless of who called the witness or introduced the exhibit and regardless of the number of witnesses which one party or the other may have produced.

If you believe that the evidence is evenly balanced on an issue, then your finding on that issue must be against the party who has the burden of proving it.

c. MPJI 30:1 – Entitlement- Generally

An employee who sustains an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment may receive worker’s compensation benefits, without regard to whose fault caused the injury.

d. MPJI 30:2 – Entitlement- Acceleration or Aggravation of Existing Condition

An employee may receive worker’s compensation benefits, even if the accidental injury only worsens or hastens a condition which existed before the injury.

A. Plaintiff’s Proposed Verdict Form:

Did the employee, suffer an accidental injury, on the date in question, in the course and scope of his employment with the Defendant Construction Company ?

YES_______ NO________