Case Name/Case #
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
Spatlana Lazvavskaia Mark Katlarsky, Esq. v. Vladimir Alekseyev 301-765-1855 531-743
Employment/Civil Procedure
Judge/ Jurisdiction
Rowan McGann Circuit Court for
Montgomery County Issues
The plaintiff, who was a former employee of the defendant, alleged that she was discharged because she refused to con- tinue to have sex with the defendant and because she filed a criminal complaint against him for battery. The primary issue presented on appeal is one of civil procedure. An amended complaint was filed a month and a half prior to trial but was stricken by the court. On appeal, the plaintiff seeks a ruling that striking the complaint was reversible error where the amended complaint did not introduce any new facts. Also on appeal are nine other issues related primarily to evidentiary and Wage Payment and Collection Act matters.
Greetings and Reedings Inc. v. David Adler 532-646
Jacqueline Ridgell, Esq 410-568-2875
Workers Compensation
Lawrence Daniels Circuit Court for Baltimore County
In this case, a workers compensation claim was denied by the Commission and appealed to the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court determined that the claimant did in fact sus- tain a compensable injury arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment. The employer makes a frontal assault on the Circuit Court findings by arguing that a mo- tion for judgment made by the employer should have been granted and that the trial court allegedly relied on unreason- able inferences and mattes that which were not in evidence. The employer asks the Court to infer that the injury either did not occur or did not occur on the job because of what the employer sees as suspicious timing. The employer al- leges that after eighteen (18) years with the company the claimant had cleaned out his office and was prepared to leave employment when the injury occurred on his last day. The employer alleges that the employee failed to notify anyone until sometime later. The trial court, citing John Wayne as an example, suggested that not every individual who is injured immediately brings attention to it. Likewise, the trial court suggested in its ruling that if the injury were faked that the claimant could have picked up a heavy box in full view of co-employees and said “ouch I hurt my back” and thereby developed a better case for himself. The employer argues that this flies in the face of presumption of correctness due the Commission’s finding in the matter.
Fall 2008
Trial Reporter
63
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76