 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hodgson v. Flippo Construction Co.9/15/2005
Eyler, James R., Krauser, Barbera, JJ.
The issue before us is whether the Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission had jurisdiction over a workers' compensation claim filed by Carlos Hodgson, a Maryland resident, against Flippo Construction Company, Inc., a Maryland-based company, for an injury that he sustained at one of Flippo's District of Columbia job sites. Concluding that it did not, the Maryland Commission dismissed Hodgson's claim. When that decision was affirmed by the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Hodgson noted this appeal, requesting that we resolve this jurisdictional issue in his favor. We cannot for the reasons set forth below.
Background
The facts are not in dispute. Appellee, Flippo Construction Company, Inc., hired Hodgson, a carpenter by trade, in Maryland, where it is headquartered and where Hodgson resides. For the first three years of his employment, from November 1995 through 1998, appellant worked almost exclusively at job sites in Maryland. That changed in 1999.
From 1999 until the date of his accident, three years later, in 2001, appellant was principally assigned to District of Columbia job sites. While employed chiefly in the District of Columbia, appellant continued to perform work in Maryland and Virginia. Appellant also traveled to Maryland two to three times a week, when requested to do so by his employer, to purchase supplies from Maryland vendors, after which he either delivered them to his D.C. job site the same day or kept them in his truck overnight at his Maryland apartment and delivered them the next morning. Appellant testified that he also periodically drove to Flippo's headquarters in Forestville, Maryland, "to deliver checks and pick up some payrolls or whatever they sent for." And he attended meetings and classes at Flippo's Maryland headquarters approximately three times a year.
On December 7, 2001, appellant was injured while working at a company job site in the District of Columbia. He filed a claim for his injuries with both the Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission and the District of Columbia Workers' Compensation Commission. Seeking dismissal of the Maryland claim, Flippo argued that the Maryland Commission did not have jurisdiction over appellant's claim because his injury occurred in the District of Columbia where he had been working for most of the year preceding his injury.
Flippo's employment records indicated that, during the year before his injury, appellant spent approximately 1,195.5 hours or 60.29% of his total "fixed job site" time at D.C. job sites; 411.5 hours or approximately 20.75% of his total "fixed job site" time at Maryland job sites; and 215 hours, approximately 10.84% of his total "fixed job site" time at Virginia job sites. An additional 161 hours or 8.12% of his working time was attributed to "miscellaneous" jobs he performed in Maryland. Those jobs, appellant testified, included "remodel the office for the company" and "putting machine together for construction."
After a hearing, the Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over appellant's claim and dismissed it. The Circuit Court for Prince George's County agreed and affirmed that decision.
Discussion
Appellant contends that the circuit court erred in concluding that he was not a "covered employee," under Md. Code (1991, 1999 Repl. Vol.), ยง 9-203(a) of the Labor and Employment Article ("L.E."), and, as a consequence, that the Commission did not have subject matter jurisdiction over his workers' compensation claim. That, of course, presents us with a question of statutory interpretation, requiring that we
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Maryland Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|