“Definite proof” is not a Standard of Proof according to Maryland Court of Special Appeals

Under Maryland Workers’ Compensation law, hernias are typically given different, stricter treatment compared to most work-related injuries. This is because the pain or symptoms of a hernia may be delayed, hernias can easily be caused by non-job-related activities, and surgery to repair hernias is typically low-risk and successful. Hernias are compensable only according to Maryland Labor and Employment §9-504 which recites in pertinent part:

[A]n employer shall provide compensation in accordance with this title to a covered employee for a hernia caused by an accidental personal injury or by a strain arising out of and in the course of employment if:

(1) the covered employee provides definite proof that satisfies the Commission that:

(i) the hernia did not exist before the accidental personal injury or strain occurred; or

(ii) as a result of the accidental personal injury or strain, a preexisting hernia has become so aggravated, incarcerated, or strangulated that an immediate operation is needed.

(emphasis supplied).

Recently, however, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals provided more gloss to the meaning of “definite proof” and potentially lowered that stricter standard. In the case of United Parcel Serv. v. Strothers, 253 Md. App. 708, 269 A.3d 400 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2022), the Claimant, Mr. Strothers sustained a hernia injury in 2019 while using a power jack to move a load of pallets. Prior to the injury, the Claimant had a history of hernias which required surgical repair. Due to the Claimant’s history of hernias, the Employer and Insurer contested whether the hernia occurred while at work in 2019 and therefore was compensable. A hearing on the issue was held at the Worker’s Compensation Commission (“Commission”) wherein a Commissioner found the hernia to be compensable.

Thereafter, the Employer and Insurer appealed to the Circuit Court for Howard County who affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. The Employer and Insurer then appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals arguing that the Commission was incorrect by using a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than the statute’s requirement of “definite proof.” The Employer and Insurer interpreted “definite proof” to mean the heightened standard of “clear and convincing evidence.”

The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision and opined that the statute’s term “definite proof” refers to the quality of evidence and does not constitute a standard of proof. The Court also clarified that definite proof doesn’t mean that hernias require a heightened clear and convincing standard. The Court reasoned that the term was included to ensure that compensation for hernias is based on testimony and evidence, which the Claimant had provided.

The Court of Special Appeals’ interpretation regarding the term “definite proof” has the implication of making hernias easier to prove. However, it doesn’t mean that anything goes. The Claimant carries the burden of proof to establish a compensable claim and the Employer and Insurer can still contest the Claimant’s position by obtaining an expert independent medical opinion. In this case, it is not clear whether the Employer and Insurer presented evidence to contradict the Claimant’s assertion but the opinion states that the Employer and Insurer did not have the Claimant attend an independent medical evaluation.

In this case, the Claimant’s own testimony about the subjective complaints and the timeline of the symptoms was enough to meet the burden. Perhaps if the Claimant was evaluated at an independent medical evaluation, the outcome of the case would be different.

Sophia Yaple