Court Opinion

ID: 9640878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:17:30.574505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:08.814352
License: Public Domain

KERN, Associate Judge,
concurring:
Since the disallowance in Maryland of appellant’s claim for workmen’s compensation rested on ambiguous grounds,1 I believe the trial court properly conducted de novo proceedings to hear the counts contained in appellant’s complaint seeking damages for the assault. After hearing testimony by appellant that during a break in his workday, while at his employer’s place of business, he was set upon by a fellow employee (without provocation) and beaten, the trial court accepted as true these facts for the purpose of ruling upon the motion by appellee (the employer) for a *845directed verdict. The court found that “the injuries suffered [by appellant] were at the place of employment” and concluded “the statute make[s] the Workmen’s Compensation Act the exclusive remedy as between the employer and employee.” (Record at 50-51.) Accordingly, the court directed a verdict for appellee on these counts. Its decision is required by the statute, Wood v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 260 Md. 651, 273 A.2d 125 (1971), and should be affirmed.2

. Appellant took no appeal from the Commission’s adverse decision.

. I also agree that the wrongful termination claim advanced by appellant was properly rejected.