Legal Opinion
Subsequent Injury Fund v. Ehrman
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
Decided January 2, 1992No. 340, September Term, 1991PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CATHELL, Judge.
The trial court in this workers’ compensation case fashioned a decision that was unsatisfactory to all parties. Not surprisingly, all the parties subsequently appealed. The statement of facts contained in the claimant’s brief best establishes the process by which the matter reaches us. We paraphrase it with certain omissions and addendums as is necessary.
Wayne Ehrman (Claimant) injured his back during the course of his employment while working for Culligan Water Conditioning Company (Employer). 1 Ehrman filed a claim with the Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission)…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Impala Platinum Ltd. v. Impala Sales (U.S.A.), Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1978
- Salisbury Beauty Schools v. State Board of CosmetologistsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1973
- Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. BlumbergCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1964
- Mazor v. State, Dep't of CorrectionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1977
- Murray International Freight Corp. v. GrahamCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1989
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Warner v. GermanCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1994
- Lombardi v. Montgomery CountyCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1996
- Carey v. Chessie Computer Services, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
- Mona Electrical Services, Inc. v. SheltonCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2002
- Mayor & City Council of Cumberland v. BeallCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1993
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.