Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 5848 September Term, 1998

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION, ET AL. v. EDWARD J. WOODIE

Davis, Eyler, Thieme, JJ. Opinion by Thieme, J.

Filed: October 1, 1999

#12C9832271

The Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation ("DLLR" or the "Department") and Richard B. Rudy, Inc. (the "employer" or "Rudy"), appeal the December 1, 1998, order of the Circuit Court for Harford County remanding this case to a DLLR Hearing Examiner "for the purposes of taking additional evidence and testimony." The Department and the employer each noted a timely appeal to this Court and present the following question: Did the circuit court err in remanding this case for a "supplemental hearing" to allow the appellee to present additional evidence, when the appellee was on notice that his only absolute opportunity to present evidence was before the DLLR Hearing Examiner, and the appellee had no legitimate justification for his failure to present the evidence in the first hearing? We answer "yes" and explain. Facts Woodie began working as a truck driver for Rudy, a trucking company based in Frederick, Maryland, on July 13, 1997. On

February 5, 1998, without giving his employer any notice, Woodie quit. While en route to a customer's site, Woodie telephoned the

employer's dispatcher and said that he was abandoning the truck and leaving the keys on one of the wheels of the tractor. He left the

truck sitting on the road with the payload still in it and did not report back to work with Rudy after that incident. Woodie applied

for insurance benefits on February 11, 1998, after leaving his job with Rudy.

On March 6, 1998, a DLLR Claims Examiner made an initial determination that the claimant voluntarily quit, but with good cause, and awarded and benefits the accordingly. Rudy appealed an that

determination, hearing.1

Department

scheduled

evidentiary

At the evidentiary hearing before a DLLR hearing examiner, Woodie, appearing pro se, testified that he was forced to quit because he was being overworked. He alleged that the number of

hours that he was required to work violated the federal regulations governing truck drivers. When questioned, however, the appellee

was unable to direct the Hearing Examiner to any specific provision that the employer had violated. Rather, the appellee's only

exhibit consisted of driving logs, which he claimed supported his contention that his hours were excessive. Rudy's vice-president testified that the company does not allow its truck drivers to work beyond the guidelines prescribed in the Federal Motor Carrier's Safety Regulations Handbook, codified at 49 C.F.R.

Download Dept. of Labor v. Woodie.pdf

Maryland Law