Legal Opinion

Helinsky v. C & P Telephone Co.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided March 1, 1996No. 782, Sept. Term, 1995PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ALPERT, Judge.

Statutory construction and the attendant linguistical gymnastics that pertain to the timeliness of a claim of occupational disease under Maryland’s Workers’ Compensation Act (“Act”) are the tasks presented to us by Mary P. Helinski, appellant, (“Ms. Helinski”) and Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company, appellee, (“C & P”) who were, respectively, employee and employer. Ms. Helinski, whose claim for workers’ compensation was denied by the Workers’ Compensation Commission (“Commission”), sought relief from the Circuit Court for Anne Arandel County. No recourse was found there,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Condon v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1993
  2. Belschner v. Anchor Post Products, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1961
  3. R & T Construction Co. v. JudgeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1991
  4. Subsequent Injury Fund v. ChapmanCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1971
  5. Pope v. Board of School CommissionersCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1995

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Mayor & City Council v. SchwingCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1998
  2. Smith v. Howard CountyCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  3. Tru-Rol Company, Inc. v. YoxCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2003
  4. Mayor of Baltimore v. SchwingCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1997
  5. Mayor & City Council v. SchwingCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1998

2 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