Legal Opinion

Subsequent Injury Fund v. Teneyck

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided November 27, 1989No. 36, September Term, 1989PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ADKINS, Judge.

The issue in this workers’ compensation case is whether Maryland Code (1957, 1988 Cum.Supp.), Article 101, § 36(3)(d), a “scheduled member” provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Article, applies when the claimant qualifies for compensation from the Subsequent Injury Fund pursuant to Maryland Code (1957, 1985 Repl.Vol.), Article 101, § 66, and the worker’s prior impairment is to a “scheduled member.”1 The appellant, the Subsequent Injury Fund (the Fund), asks this Court to reverse the circuit court’s holding that the Fund must compensate the claimant *628for his pre-existing…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Kaczorowski v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1987
  2. Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Inc. v. Department of Employment & TrainingCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1987
  3. Subsequent Injury Fund v. PackCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1968
  4. Subsequent Injury Fund v. ChapmanCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1971
  5. Subsequent Injury Fund v. ChapmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1971

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Catonsville Nursing Home, Inc. v. LovemanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1998
  2. Board of License Commissioners v. ToyeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  3. Victor v. Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
  4. Smith v. GrossCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
  5. Read v. Supervisor of AssessmentsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999

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

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

Powered by the Exa API