F&P Spotlight on Associate Kara Parker

/0 Comments/in , /by F&P Spotlight on Associate Kara Parker

What is your practice area and how did you choose it?
Employment Law and Workers’ Comp.  I like the high pace of the Commission work and the “we must protect this house” aspect of employment law and defense litigation.

What’s your favorite thing about working with your clients?
I love the problem-solving aspect of what we do and working with my clients on strategies to meet their needs and limit exposure – Teamwork makes the dream work!

What is your favorite aspect about working at F&P?
Without a doubt, the teamwork and culture.  When I first started at F&P, I knew this was the place for me.  We have fun, work hard, and with the help of everyone from the partners on down work together to make each one of us better every day.  Truly.

What’s your favorite restaurant/show/event in Baltimore?
I love a sporting event – ESPECIALLY, a Ravens game.

What’s your proudest accomplishment?
Passing the bar!

Tell us something about you that few of your colleagues and clients would know.
My Frenchie’s name is “Taybur” after Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton – I’m an old movie freak.

What do you like to do outside the office?
I love being outside.  My fiancé and I do a lot of biking, hiking, and hanging out in bars watching international rugby (Go Wales!)

Have you read any good books or seen any good movies this year that you would recommend?
I read A LOT – If you like fantasy, I HIGHLY recommend the Fourth Wing series.  It’s excellent!

What is your favorite food?
Mashed potatoes.

What is your all-time favorite city or town and why?
B-More (Why B-less?).  I love Baltimore – I always have.  I think our city has a unique vibe and flavor that gets under your skin in all the best ways.  Plus, there’s nothing quite like the feel of a Purple Friday in this city during football season.

What was the best news you ever received?
The BEST news? That I was an Aunt (x2).  Shout out to Shiloh and Wyatt Saine for allowing me to live out my Auntie Mame fantasies.

What is the weirdest thing you have ever eaten?
Pickled pig’s knuckles – Don’t knock ‘em ‘til you try them!

If you could have lunch with anyone in the world who would it be?
This is a tough one.  Alive: Ray Lewis.  Dead:  Maya Angelou.

Do you have any bizarre talents?
I’m freakishly talented at claw games – The kind you see at the boardwalk or bowling alley.  Weird, I know.

 

Say What? F&P Prevails Before the Appellate Court of Maryland on Hearing Loss Claim

/0 Comments/in /by Say What? F&P Prevails Before the Appellate Court of Maryland on Hearing Loss Claim

A new reported opinion from the Appellate Court of Maryland (ACM) was issued earlier this month as it relates to occupational deafness claims.  The ACM was tasked with determining whether the last injurious exposure rule applies both to insurers and employers and if it applies to hearing loss claims.

F&P Counsel Mike Bennett represented the appellee, the City of Laurel, and delivered oral arguments at the ACM.  The appellant was the insurance company that provided coverage for Laurel during the majority, but not the entirety, of the claimant’s employment with them several decades ago.  Despite there being no dispute that the employment with Laurel contributed to the claimant’s hearing loss, the appellant argued that they were not responsible for covering the claim since they did not insure Laurel at the time of the claimant’s last injurious exposure with them. The appellant posited that the last injurious exposure rule applies only to insurers, and not employers, in hearing loss cases.

The ACM rejected the appellant’s argument and held that the last injurious exposure rule applies equally to employers and insurers; and that the last injurious exposure rule does not apply to hearing loss claims. In reaching its conclusion, the appellate court went through the legislative history of the various statutes at play, the fact that §19-402(b)(5) of the Insurance Article explicitly states that an award against an employer is also binding against its insurer, and also rejected the public policy arguments advanced by the appellant.