Reply to suing MCPS for covid-related health problems

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "suing MCPS for covid-related health problems"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Yes. You can sue. Family member is currently receiving workers comp in PA due to COVID complications that she contracted at work. Workers have fewer rights in PA than in MD and as a teacher that is married to a lawyer, I can assure you we have a plan in place if I were to get really sick from covid. [/quote]

Workers comp is no fault whereas tort law is not. Workers comp doesn’t require proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Tort does. Entirely different legal analysis.

I’m a workers comp attorney and early on in Covid, establishing source of infection wasn’t that difficult but now it’s an entirely different story. Unless you see no one and never go out except for your job or unless you work in a place where Covid is rampant like the Covid ward of a hospital or nursing home, it’s impossible to establish source of infection. OPs assertion that she has unequivocal proof is likely not the case. [/quote]

Is it really that difficult?

Example: the in-person child contracts covid first in the family.  The prior few days, the only contact the child has with others is at school.  None of the other family members tested positive until after the first child was sick (and they didn't go outside that weekend or maybe the child only had a fever on Friday ex. during the contagious / incubation period)?[/quote]

How do you know kid was first positive in the family?  Was everyone tested before kid’s positive?  Most Covid is asymptomatic. Yes it is really difficult. [/quote]

Yeah, I can see that.  But if the family only tests the kid first, is asymptomatic, or shows sequential covid testing dates (negative --> positive), still might be possible?

"As applied in Maryland, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is not only applicable to the State, itself, as a governmental agency, but is also applicable to its agencies and instrumentalities, including its municipal political sub-divisions, if engaged in a governmental function as an agent of the State, unless the General Assembly either directly or by necessary implication has waived the immunity." https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2328&context=mlr

"the court concluded the MTCA insulates state personnel from all types of tort claims absent a sufficient showing of actual malice. Id. at 253, 863 A.2d at 302.  Thus, the court found, the defense of public official immunity is very narrow and generally applies only to negligent acts. Id." [,,]  "In Shoemaker v. Smith, 353 Md. 143, 725 A.2d 549 (1999), the court defined "actual malice" as "conduct characterized by [b]evil or wrongful motive, intent to injure, knowing and deliberate wrongdoing, ill-will or fraud[/b]." Id."  https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2148&context=lf

That would be difficult to prove, although (hypothetically) spending covid money on whatever then claiming there was no money to go virtual after-the-fact might be an example?  Not an attorney, but it really does seem like an uphill battle.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics