Legal Opinion

Injured Workers' Insurance Fund v. Subsequent Injury Fund

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided April 3, 2015No. 0358/14PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.

This consolidated appeal arises from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (“Commission”) in two separate cases concluding that, pursuant to Md.Code (1991, 2008 RepLVol.), Labor & Employment Article (“LE”), employers must compensate appellee, the Subsequent Injury Fund (“SIF”), a 6.5% assessment based on the Commission’s entire award to the employee, not merely the amount payable after any offsets for retirement benefits. The employer in the first case, appellant, Maryland Transit Administration (“MTA”), 1 filed a petition for judicial review of the Commission’s decision regarding…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Subsequent Injury Fund v. PackCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1968
  2. Montgomery County v. DeiblerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2011
  3. Philip Electronics North America v. WrightCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1997
  4. Nooe v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1975
  5. Stachowski v. Sysco Food Services of Baltimore, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2007

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Maryland Office of People's Counsel v. Maryland Public Service CommissionCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2016
  2. Injured Workers' Insurance Fund v. Subsequent Injury FundCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2016
  3. Harford Cnty. v. MitchellCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2020
  4. People's Counsel v. Public Serv. Comm'nCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API