Legal Opinion

Subsequent Injury Fund v. State Roads Commission

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided March 15, 1977No. 695, September Term, 1976PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLowe, J.

The sole question to be answered in this case is whether the Subsequent Injury Fund’s liability under Md. Code, Art. 101, § 66, may be satisfied and discharged pro tanto or in full when the employer furnishes a pension benefit to the claimant under the provisions of Md. Code, Art. 101, § 33. Factually, it will suffice to relate that the claimant, Edward F. Jarzynski, was an employee of the State of Maryland through the State Roads Commission and was injured in that capacity. Because of physical impairments from a prior disability, he was entitled to and received an award from the Subsequent…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Mazor v. State, Dep't of CorrectionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1977
  2. Nooe v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1975
  3. Mazor v. State, Department of CorrectionCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1976

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Subsequent Injury Fund v. EhrmanCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1992
  2. Blaker v. State Board of Chiropractic ExaminersCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1998
  3. Steuart Investment Co. v. Board of CommissionersCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1978
  4. Workmen's Compensation Commission v. Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corp.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API