Legal Opinion

Schaffer v. Subsequent Injury Fund

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided September 4, 2012No. 548PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtMeredith, J.

Russell T. Schaffer, appellant, appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, which affirmed a ruling of the Workers’ Compensation Commission which held that the Subsequent Injury Fund (“SIF”), appellee, would not have to accelerate the commencement of its payments to Schaffer, notwithstanding the fact that his employer’s payments had been accelerated pursuant to a lump sum settlement. For the reasons set forth herein, we will affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

Background

The origins of the Subsequent Injury Fund were described by the Court of Appeals as follows in…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Kaczorowski v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1987
  2. Tucker v. Fireman's Fund InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1986
  3. State v. FabritzCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1975
  4. Height v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1961
  5. Subsequent Injury Fund v. PackCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1968

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Montgomery Cnty. v. GangCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API