United Parcel Service v. Strothers, 286 A.3d 23

Employee David Strothers (UPS) suffered a work incident on Sept. 17, 2019; CT and subsequent surgery revealed an umbilical/paraumbilical hernia. He had prior hernias (a May 2016 repair and a ~20-year-old hernia) in his medical history.
Strothers filed a hernia workers’ compensation claim; the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission found (1) an accidental injury occurred, (2) the Sept. 2019 hernia was new and caused by that injury, and (3) total disability for a specified period.
Petitioners (UPS and its insurer) argued that the statutory phrase “definite proof” in Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. § 9-504(a)(1) elevated a claimant’s burden of persuasion to clear and convincing evidence and that Strothers failed to meet it.
Strothers submitted a medical opinion from Dr. Robert Macht stating, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the Sept. 2019 hernia was new; UPS submitted no expert contradictory medical evidence.
The Commission, the Circuit Court, and the Court of Special Appeals upheld the award; the Court of Appeals granted certiorari and affirmed, holding “definite proof” governs the quality of evidence required at the production stage, not a heightened burden of persuasion, and that Strothers’ evidence satisfied the statutory requirement.

Issue	Strothers' Argument	UPS's Argument	Held
Whether “definite proof” in L&E § 9-504(a)(1) refers to the quality of evidence (burden of production) or elevates the claimant’s burden of persuasion to clear and convincing	“Definite proof” limits the quality of evidence a claimant must produce (burden of production); the claimant’s burden of persuasion remains preponderance	“Definite proof” raises the burden of persuasion to clear and convincing for hernia claims	Court held it refers to the quality of evidence required for production; burden of persuasion stays as preponderance of the evidence
Whether Strothers met his burdens (production and persuasion) with the submitted medical evidence	Dr. Macht’s opinion (reasonable degree of medical certainty) constituted definite proof and supported entitlement	Petitioners contended Dr. Macht’s opinion was insufficient and urged a higher (clear-and-convincing) standard	Court held Dr. Macht’s opinion satisfied the definite-proof production requirement and, because Petitioners offered no contrary expert evidence, Strothers met the preponderance-of-the-evidence persuasion burden
Meaning of the phrase “immediate operation is needed” in § 9-504(a)(1)(ii) (timing vs. necessity)	N/A (not the primary ground here)	UPS asked court to construe “immediate” as to timing	Court declined to decide this issue as unnecessary to resolve the appeal

United Parcel Serv. v. Strothers, 253 Md. App. 708 (Ct. Spec. App. 2022) (appellate decision below affirming Commission award)
Montgomery Cty. v. Cochran, 471 Md. 186 (2020) (standards for reviewing Commission decisions; de novo review for legal questions)
Montgomery Cty. v. Deibler, 423 Md. 54 (2011) (plain statutory language controls interpretation)
Bean v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 406 Md. 419 (2008) (expert testimony required when issue beyond lay knowledge)
Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Ziegenfuss, 187 Md. 283 (1946) (historical rationale for distinguishing hernia claims and requiring greater proof)
Plank v. Cherneski, 469 Md. 548 (2020) (statutory disjunctive "or" interpreted in disjunctive sense)
Urban Site Venture II Ltd. v. Levering Assocs., 340 Md. 223 (1995) (identifying the three standards of proof: preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond reasonable doubt)
Allmond v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 448 Md. 592 (2016) (preserving issues for administrative review)