29 A.3d 999
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Doe worked as a banquet houseman at the BWI Hilton, setting up tables in the banquet hall.
- A dispute with coworker Gardner over a supply cart led to Gardner’s rage and verbal/physical conduct.
- Gardner called a third party, Newsome, inviting him to confront Doe; the conflict moved to the parking lot and lobby.
- Doe signed out after his shift and left the premises; Gardner and Newsome pursued him; Newsome shot Doe in a dark alley, injuring him severely.
- The Workers’ Compensation Commission initially awarded benefits, but the circuit court reversed, holding the injury was not covered by the Act.
- The issue on appeal is whether the assault arose out of and in the course of employment under the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the injury qualifies as an accidental injury under LE 9-101(b)(1). | Doe argues the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. | Employer contends the injury did not occur in the course of employment. | No; injury did not occur in the course of employment. |
| Whether, under LE 9-101(b)(2), the injury is compensable as a third-party act in the course of employment. | Doe contends the third-party assault was connected to employment and should be compensable. | Employer argues proximity/governed by going-and-coming rule, none of which applies here. | No; even under 9-101(b)(2), not compensable because the attack was not directed at him in the course of employment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Giant Food, Inc. v. Gooch, 245 Md. 160 (Md. 1967) (third-party injury need only occur in the course of employment)
- Edgewood Nursing Home v. Maxwell, 282 Md. 422 (Md. 1978) (injury by third party on employer premises can be compensable)
- Montgomery County v. Wade, 345 Md. 1 (Md. 1997) (course-of-employment and proximity analysis; exceptions to going-and-coming rule)
- Wiley Mfg. Co. v. Wilson, 280 Md. 200 (Md. 1977) (proximity rule and special hazards exceptions to going-and-coming rule)
- Jennifer v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., 176 Md.App. 211 (Md. App. 2007) (reasonably incidental relationship between injury and work suffices to arise out of employment)