finding that to determine the legislative intent, “the Court considers the language of an enactment and gives that language its natural and ordinary meaning”
How later courts described this case
- finding that to determine the legislative intent, “the Court considers the language of an enactment and gives that language its natural and ordinary meaning”
- explaining that “[t]he cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and carry out the intent of the legislature”
- we read the statute so that “no word, phrase, clause or sentence is rendered surplusage or meaningless.”
- analogizing permanent total disability under the Workers’ Compensation Act to “total incapacity” under section 33-43 of the Montgomery County Code
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ELDRIDGE, CHASANOW and ROBERT M. BELL, Judges,
dissent.
They would affirm the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Raker, J.) and the Court of Special Appeals for the reasons stated by the Court of Special Appeals in Montgomery County v. Buckman, 96 Md.App. 206 , 624 A.2d 1274 (1993).