Uninsured Employers' Fund v. White, 100 A.3d 1275

Mr. White injured his right ankle in 2004 during employment; the Commission awarded disability benefits.
In 2010 he sought to revise his claim to relate new back and left ankle injuries to the original right ankle injury.
The Commission found the back injury related to the initial injury but the left ankle injury was not.
The Fund petitioned the circuit court to review the Commission’s order; White did not timely file a cross-petition but the court allowed him to challenge the left ankle issue at trial, and the court reversed the left ankle portion.
The court later held that White’s failure to file a timely cross-petition precluded review of the left ankle causal relationship; the circuit court’s ruling to address it was error.
The Court of Special Appeals reversed the circuit court, holding that a cross-petition was required for affirmative relief, and that the de novo review did not permit reviewing that issue absent a cross-appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether White could challenge the left ankle finding without a timely cross-petition.	White argues de novo review required addressing all Commission issues.	Fund contends cross-petition required to review adverse left ankle finding.	Cross-petition required; circuit court erred in reviewing left ankle issue.
Whether the circuit court properly instructed on burden of persuasion in the de novo trial.	White contends proper de novo burden applied.	Fund argues burden should track agency decision.	Not reached due to other dispositive error; issue discussed but remanded?

Darby v. Marley Cooling Tower Co., 190 Md. App. 736 (Md. 2010) (non-appealing party cannot raise issues without cross-appeal when de novo appeal exists)
Griggs v. C&H Mechanical Corp., 169 Md. App. 556 (Md. 2006) (de novo review limits; cross-appeal required for certain issues)
Archers Glen Partners, Inc. v. Garner, 176 Md. App. 292 (Md. 2007) (cross-appeal necessity to obtain affirmative relief; framework for review)