Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 58 September Term, 2003

LARRY T. FITZGERALD

v.

R & R TRUCKING, INC., ET AL.

Davis, Eyler, Deborah S., Barbera, JJ.

Opinion by Davis, J.

Filed: December 11, 2003

On August 24, 2001, appellant Larry T. Fitzgerald filed a claim with the Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission

(Commission). The claim emanated from a work-related accident that occurred on January 10, 2001, when appellant slipped and fell on ice at a Pennsylvania truck stop. On March 22, 2002, a hearing was

held before the Commission on the issue of whether Maryland had jurisdiction over appellant's claim. In an order dated April 22,

2002, the Commission concluded that Maryland did have jurisdiction over the claim. Appellee R & R Trucking, Inc. appealed the

Commission's decision to the Circuit Court of Wicomico County on May 2, 2002. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment and The trial court granted

a hearing was held on January 10, 2003.

appellee's motion for summary judgment and therefore reversed the decision of the Commission by concluding that Maryland did not have jurisdiction over appellant's claim. Appellant filed a Motion for

Reconsideration on January 22, 2003 and the motion was denied on March 6, 2003. Subsequently, appellant noted his timely appeal on

March 25, 2003, presenting one question for our review, which we rephrase as follows: Did the trial court err in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment? We answer appellant's question in the negative and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

- 2 -

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Appellant, a resident of Maryland, applied for employment as a tractor-trailer driver with appellee in August 2000. Appellee,

a trucking company headquartered in Joplin, Missouri, has no offices in Maryland and, thus, appellant traveled to Missouri to apply for employment. After accepting a position, appellant

operated a tractor-trailer for appellee from approximately August 14, 2000 until January 10, 2001. During that time, appellee

provided a truck for appellant to drive and dispatched driving assignments to him via satellite radio. The driving assignments

were random, requiring appellant to travel throughout most of the United States. was between The only semi-regular route traveled by appellant Maryland and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Landover,

Appellant made the Landover/Oklahoma City trip approximately nine times in the months of November and December 2000, hauling mail for the holiday season. Although appellant frequently passed through Maryland en route to other destinations and occasionally made deliveries in Maryland, such as Landover, he rarely visited his Maryland residence.1

Instead, appellant spent most of the five months of his employment traveling and sleeping in his truck. When appellant did travel

home, he parked his truck in Maryland at a relative's residence.

Appellant testified before the Commission that, between October 15, 2000 and January 10, 2001, he only visited his Maryland residence once.

1

- 3 The employment relationship also required that appellee withhold Maryland income taxes from appellant's paychecks and that the paychecks be directly deposited into appellant's checking account at a bank in Maryland. It is undisputed that appellant had a

Maryland commercial driver's license (CDL) at the time he applied for employment, but the parties disagree on whether appellee required appellant to obtain a Maryland CDL Hazardous-Material (Haz-Mat) license, which is required for the transportation of hazardous materials. On January 10, 2001, appellant slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot of a truck stop in Madison, Pennsylvania, resulting in an injury to his left shoulder. appellant was driving a At the time of the accident, for appellee to a

tractor-trailer

destination in New York State and, therefore, the parties do not dispute that appellant was within the scope of employment when he fell at the truck stop. Following the accident, appellant did not

immediately seek medical treatment but instead continued on his delivery route, which eventually ended in Joplin, Missouri. While

in Joplin, appellant received medical treatment, including surgery, which was performed benefits lost wages on February 20, 2001. in Also, workers' covering

compensation appellant's

were and

initiated medical

Missouri,

benefits.

Subsequently,

appellant returned to Maryland and, on August 24, 2001, he filed a claim with the Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission.

- 4 On March 22, 2002, a hearing was held before the Commission. The primary issue addressed at the hearing was whether Maryland was the proper jurisdiction for appellant's claim. that Maryland was that was not not a the appropriate employee the in Appellee argued because Appellee because medical

jurisdiction Maryland. jurisdiction received

appellant suggested appellant

regular was

Missouri for

correct

applied

employment,

initially

treatment, and received workers' compensation benefits in Missouri. The Commission disagreed with appellee and ruled, on April 22, 2002, that Maryland did have jurisdiction over the claim. Appellee appealed the decision of the Commission to the Circuit Court for Wicomico County on May 2, 2002. As we noted,

appellant and appellee both filed motions for summary judgment and, after the court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment and denied appellant's motion for reconsideration, this appeal

followed.

LEGAL ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of appellee. Specifically, appellant

asserts that he is a "covered employee" under Md. Code (1999 Repl. Vol.), Lab. & Empl. (L.E.)

Download Fitzgerald v. R&R.pdf

Maryland Law