Preview:

Headnotes: Carl A. Abrams v. American Tennis Courts, Inc., No. 2517, September Term, 2003. JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL: Circuit court action was barred under the doctrine of judicial estoppel when (1) injured workman brought a workers' compensation claim against his employer based on the allegation that he fell down some steps on his employer's premises; (2) based on the allegation in the claim form, the Commission made an award to the worker; (3) after the award by the Commission, it was discovered that the worker was not injured on the employer's premises; (4) as a result of the aforementioned discovery, the Commission ordered the worker to repay the employer all monies received from the earlier award; and (5) the worker, after professing an inability to repay any of the monies received based on the initial award of the Commission, brought a tort claim against the employer claiming that he was injured by an agent of the employer who negligently struck him with a vehicle owned by the employer while he was standing on a public highway.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2517 September Term, 2003 _______________________________

CARL A. ABRAMS

V.

AMERICAN TENNIS COURTS, INC.

_______________________________ Salmon, Eyler, Deborah S., Sharer, JJ. _______________________________ Opinion by Salmon, J. Filed:

Carl

Abrams

filed

a

complaint

in

the

Circuit

Court

for

Baltimore County against his former employer, American Tennis Courts, Inc. ("ATC"). ATC filed a motion for summary judgment,

which was granted on the basis that Abrams was barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel from filing the complaint. judgment was entered in favor of ATC. The sole question presented in this appeal is whether the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment on the ground that Abrams was judicially estopped from pursuing his claim. Summary

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Carl Abrams ("Abrams") brought a workers' compensation claim against ATC and its insurer, the Injured Workers' Compensation Fund. In that claim, Abrams alleged that, while on ATC's premises, he fell and was severely injured. According to what was said in

his claim form, Abrams was "walking down a short flight of stairs when [he] slipped and fell on [his] back." reported to be 5 a.m. on August 2, 1995. The time of injury was Initially, ATC and its

insurer accepted as true Abrams's statement as to how, when, and where the accident occurred. Based on facts set forth in appellant's claim form, the workers' compensation commission, ("the Commission"), on October 13, 1995, ordered ATC and its insurer to: (1) pay Abrams $200 per week and (2) pay all medical bills that arose out of the August 2, 1995, accident. Pursuant to the aforementioned Commission's order,

and based on a belief that the accident had occurred in the manner reported by appellant, ATC's insurer thereafter paid to appellant over $185,000 for medical bills and lost wages. After paying these compensation benefits for a little over one year, the employer/insurer received information that cast doubt upon Abrams's veracity. The employer/insurer, armed with new

information, alleged fraud and asked the Commission to reconsider its October 13, 1995, order. A hearing concerning these

allegations was held on May 5, 1997, before Commissioner Charles Krysiak. The employer/insurer called Abrams as an adverse witness at the reconsideration hearing. Abrams testified that his girlfriend He

drove him to ATC's warehouse on the morning of the accident.

further testified that he "punched the time clock" at 5 a.m., and as he was leaving the warehouse and descending some stairs, he slipped on some beads and fell down the stairway. The following exchange occurred between Abrams and counsel for the employer/insurer: Q So it's your testimony, sir, that the accident happened at work; correct? A Q A Yes, sir. No doubt in your mind about this? No. * * * Q . . . About two months after you were released from the hospital, you had a conversation with David Hands and some other people in your home about your being injured. 2

Do you remember that? Do you remember them coming to make sure you were doing okay? A I remember them coming.

Q During the course of that conversation, you told them that you were run over by a truck operated by Norm [Alley, Jr.] at your house? A No, I did not say that. * * * Q You're denying that?

A Yes, I am. I've never said anything like that. That would be ridiculous to say something

Download Abrams v. American Tennis.pdf

Maryland Law