Opinion ID: 2196029
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Act Comes Within the Accidental Injury Provision of the Workmen's Compensation Law.

Text: Petitioner seeks to support this contention with the assertion that Sec. 64A is placed following the provision dealing with accidental injury [Sec. 64] rather than following the provisions dealing with occupational diseases beginning with Sec. 22.... We cannot accept this proposition. Sections 64 and 64A both appear under the subheading entitled Miscellaneous. While it is true that section 64A does not follow the provisions dealing with occupational diseases, it cannot be said that section 64A is so placed as to lead inevitably to the conclusion that its subject matter is limited to accidental injury. Although both sections deal with presumptions to be engaged in when applying the Workmen's Compensation statute and although section 64A directly follows section 64, section 64A is not a subsection of section 64. Added subsequent to the original statute, section 64A is an independent section; the designation A is only for placement purposes within the Article, and does not signify a complete subordination of the latter section to the prior. Further evidence that this section does not deal with accidental injury is made clear by its title. Mass Transit Administration v. Baltimore County Revenue Auth., 267 Md. 687, 298 A.2d 413 (1973) and Shipley v. State, supra, 201 Md. 96, are controlling in this regard. In Mass Transit Administration v. Baltimore County Revenue Auth., supra , we said at pages 695-96: That the title of an act is relevant to ascertainment of its [the Legislature's] intent and purpose is well settled.... In Shipley, supra, our predecessors said at page 103: A title which is descriptive to some extent must go far to fix the understanding of its purpose among legislators and interested members of the public. `Bills are sometimes read, especially the first time, by their titles only, and the titles only are spread upon the journal.' Stiefel v. Maryland Institution for the Blind, 61 Md. 144, 148 [1884]. And it is the main purpose of the constitutional provision to prevent enactment under a misconception by reason of a misdescriptive title. `The object of the requirement of the Constitution is that legislators and the public may be informed by the title of the general nature of the provisions proposed to be enacted.' Levin v. Hewes, 118 Md. 624, 632, 86 A. 233, 235 [1912]. It follows that a restriction in the title must either confine the operation of the act to conform to that description, if such a construction is possible, or render the act void to the extent of the conflict....