192 A.3d 886
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2018Background
- Michael Quinlan, a Baltimore County paramedic/firefighter, claimed degenerative tears of the medial and lateral menisci (right knee) arising from repetitive kneeling/squatting and lifting during his employment; he underwent partial meniscectomy in Feb. 2015.
- Workers’ Compensation Commission denied the occupational disease claim; Quinlan appealed to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County and requested a jury trial.
- At trial Quinlan testified about frequent kneeling (often on his right knee), lifting patients, and prior knee soreness; he returned to work after surgery.
- Dr. Barbara Cochran (occupational medicine) testified that repetitive kneeling/squatting is a risk factor for meniscal injury and osteoarthritis and opined Quinlan’s job caused his knee osteoarthritis.
- Dr. Richard Hinton (orthopedic) acknowledged higher OA/meniscal rates in physically demanding jobs and that Quinlan’s prior 2005 on-the-job episode made an occupational contribution more plausible, though he emphasized age and weight as significant risk factors.
- A jury found Quinlan’s degenerative meniscal tears to be an occupational disease arising out of employment; the Circuit Court entered judgment consistent with the verdict and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Quinlan's Argument | Baltimore County's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether degenerative meniscal tears/osteoarthritis constitute an occupational disease under LE § 9-502(d)(1) | Job duties (repetitive kneeling/squatting, lifting) are regular and are risk factors that contributed to the knee condition | Osteoarthritis is a common "disease of life," not inherent to the occupation; other non-occupational risk factors (weight, age, stairs) explain condition; studies cited are insufficient | Affirmed: evidence sufficient that risk factors (repetitive kneeling/squatting) in paramedic work adhered to employment and contributed to Quinlan’s condition, satisfying § 9-502(d)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Foble v. Knefely, 176 Md. 474 (1939) (definition of occupational disease as expectable result of conditions inherent in employment)
- Davis v. Dynacorp, 336 Md. 226 (1994) (mental injury from harassment not compensable when not due to nature of employment)
- Means v. Baltimore County, 344 Md. 661 (1997) (PTSD may be compensable if disease and hazard are inherent in the occupation)
- King v. Bd. of Ed. of Prince George’s Cty., 354 Md. 369 (1999) (occupational disease must be due to nature of the general occupation)
- Blake v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 225 Md. 196 (1961) (aggravation of an ordinary disease by work does not automatically render the disease occupational unless resulting condition is due in part to the occupation)
- Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Bobbitt, 96 Md. App. 157 (1993) (focus on whether resulting condition is due, at least in part, to the occupation)
- Black & Decker Corp. v. Humbert, 189 Md. App. 171 (2009) (risk factors of occupation, not disease label, must inhere in employment; repetitive work duties may support occupational disease recovery)