Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 376 September Term, 2011 ______________________________________ MARTIN MCLAUGHLIN v. GILL SIMPSON ELECTRIC, ET AL. ______________________________________ Krauser, C.J. Graeff, Watts, JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Watts, J. ______________________________________ Filed: June 29, 2012

This appeal stems from an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County affirming the Workers' Compensation Commission's (the "Commission") denial of a Petition to Reopen1 appellant Martin McLaughlin's workers' compensation claim. Appellant noted an appeal raising one issue, which we rephrase:2 Whether the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in ruling that appellant's withdrawal of the Issues filed in conjunction with the Petition to Reopen constituted a withdrawal of the petition? We answer this question in the negative, and, therefore, shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Before this Court, appellees, Gill Simpson Electric and Zurich American Insurance Company, and appellant presented an agreed statement of facts, which we quote: On November 9, 2002, [a]ppellant [] sustained a compensable work related injury to his back. Following a course of treatment, a hearing was held on the nature and extent of any permanent disability that [appellant] suffered as a result of the injury. On February 26, 2004, the Workers' Compensation Commission found

In his brief, appellant refers to a Request for Reconsideration/Modification, which is the title of the form that was provided by the Commission. In case law, the terms "Petition to Reopen" and "Request for Reconsideration/Modification" are used interchangeably. See Giant Food, Inc. v. Eddy, 179 Md. App. 633, 634, 640, cert. denied, 405 Md. 506 (2008). For consistency with the Agreed Statement of Facts and the orders of the Commission and circuit court, we use the term "Petition to Reopen."
2

1

Appellant phrased the issue as follows:

There is no legal basis that supports a finding that the withdrawal of an "Issue", filed under COMAR, amounts to the withdrawal of a Request for Reconsideration/Modification, filed pursuant to

Download McLaughlin v. Gill Simpson Elec..pdf

Maryland Law