17 A.2d 140 | Md. | 1941
This case comes up on appeal from an order of the Baltimore City Court dismissing the appeal of Anna Di *221 Pietro from an order of the Industrial Accident Commission dismissing her claim for compensation as the widow of Louis Di Pietro.
The case was heard in the City Court on the petition of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, employer, and the answer of the appellant.
The petition of the City said that on December 24th, 1937, the Industrial Accident Commission, after hearing, disallowed the claim of Louis D. Pietro, and ruled that he had not sustained an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, and that he was suffering from a disease or sickness on October 13th, 1937, not connected with or resulting from his employment by the City; that on an appeal by Louis Di Pietro, the order of the Accident Commission was affirmed on March 7th, 1939; that an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals on April 28th, 1939, was not prosecuted and was abandoned, and thereby the judgment of the Baltimore City Court became a complete and final adjudication binding upon Louis Di Pietro and those claiming by, through, or under him; that the claim of the appellant, Anna Di Pietro, widow, is based on the same accident for which her husband (now deceased) claimed compensation for injury.
The appellant's answer was that the evidence at the hearing before the Accident Commission was that the claimant Louis Di Pietro, was suffering from gastric ulcers, whereas an operation performed May 12th, 1939, showed that he had what is commonly called a blood tumor, and that the causal connection between the alleged accident and a blood tumor could have been shown by the testimony of a fellow employee who did not testify at the hearing of the original claim when Louis Di Pietro was living and present.
The appellant cites but one case, that is Sea Gull SpecialtyCo. v. Snyder,
The appellee's contention is that, it having been first decided by the Accident Commission and on appeal by the City Court that Louis Di Pietro was not entitled to compensation for his alleged injuries, that the question of the employer's liability is foreclosed, and the appellant estopped from asserting a claim based on the same injury. In other words, the rule of resjudicata applies. There are several decisions in other jurisdictions which support this position. Ek v. Department ofLabor and Industry,
While, as we said, we have not had the exact case, the same principle was involved in the case of the Gold Dust Corporationv. Zabawa,
Order affirmed, with costs. *224