Gales v. Sunoco & Amer. Zurich Ins.
102 A.3d 371
Md.2014Background
- Petitioner Luther Gales injured on the job; the Workers’ Compensation Commission entered an Award requiring Employer (Sunoco/American Zurich) to pay additional temporary total disability and a pain‑management evaluation.
- Employer appealed to the circuit court and requested a de novo jury trial under LE § 9-745; at trial the venire and jury were told the Commission had entered an Award for Gales and that the Award is prima facie correct.
- Employer presented a video deposition of Dr. Riederman asserting no further treatment was necessary, but did not move the Commission Award into evidence; after Employer rested, Gales moved for judgment arguing the Award had not been offered and the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed.
- The trial court denied Employer’s motion to reopen to admit the Award, granted Gales’s motion for judgment, and affirmed the Award, reasoning the appellant bore the burden to prove the Commission erred and thus should have introduced the Award.
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding neither Holman nor LE § 9-745(b) requires the appellant to introduce the Commission decision into evidence.
- The Court of Appeals granted certiorari and affirmed the Court of Special Appeals: an appellant in a de novo workers’ compensation jury trial is not required to move the Commission decision into evidence; the trial judge must, however, inform the jury of the Commission decision and the statutory presumption of correctness (Holman instruction).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an appellant in a de novo workers’ compensation jury trial must move the Commission decision into evidence | Gales: Appellant must introduce the Commission decision; without it the circuit court lacks jurisdiction and the presumption cannot be applied | Employer: Not required to offer the Commission decision; judge can instruct jury on Commission decision and presumption | No. The Court held the appellant need not move the Commission decision into evidence; the judge must instruct the jury about the decision and the presumption of correctness |
| Whether a jury can apply the statutory prima facie presumption absent the decision in evidence | Gales: Jury cannot apply the presumption if it cannot see the decision | Employer: Instruction conveying the decision and presumption is sufficient | Instruction is sufficient; jury can apply the presumption without the Award being admitted |
| Whether Holman requires admission of the Commission decision into evidence | Gales: Holman’s requirement that the jury be informed implies admission into evidence | Employer: Holman requires informing the jury but not admission | Holman requires informing the jury and giving the presumption instruction but does not mandate admission into evidence |
| Whether trial courts may exclude Commission decisions from the jury to avoid prejudice | Employer: Admission may be prejudicial or unnecessary | Gales: (implicit) admission needed for fairness | Court: Trial judge may exclude or redact the decision if prejudicial; judge’s instruction is a preferable control mechanism |
Key Cases Cited
- Holman v. Kelly Catering, Inc., 334 Md. 480, 639 A.2d 701 (1994) (trial judge must inform jury of Commission decision and that it is prima facie correct)
- Thomas v. Panco Mgmt. of Md., LLC, 423 Md. 387, 31 A.3d 583 (2011) (standard of appellate review for trial court grant of judgment)
- Abell v. Albert F. Goetze, Inc., 245 Md. 433, 226 A.2d 253 (1967) (appellant may rely on record or new evidence to show Commission erred)
- Morris v. Christopher, 255 Md. 372, 258 A.2d 172 (1969) (appellate principles on reviewing Commission findings)