Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Stressing that under the facts of the case, the employer was not entitled to a subrogation lien against a medical malpractice settlement concerning treatment that an injured employee received following a work-related injury since the employer was required to pay for the medical care associated with the injury in any event, a Maryland appellate court affirmed a county circuit court’s decision that barred the employer from recovery. The appellate court acknowledged that if the malpractice had resulted in additional medical charges, it would have been required to pay them and, under those circumstances, would have enjoyed a lien, but those facts did not exist here. The employer had paid medical expenses in connection with the initial injury, but paid none for the faulty treatment. It should not be better off than it would have been had there been no malpractice at all.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Baltimore Cty. v. Ulrich, 2020 Md. App. LEXIS 77 (Jan. 30, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 117.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.