Johnson v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore
Decision Date | 12 May 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 77, No. 60 |
Citation | 874 A.2d 439,387 Md. 1 |
Parties | Ernest A. JOHNSON v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE CITY. Daniel T. Luster, Jr. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Paul D. Bekman (Gregory G. Hopper, Salsbury, Clements, Bekman, Marder & Adkins, LLC, on brief), Baltimore, for petitioner.
William R. Phelan, Jr., Principal Counsel, Herbert Burgunder, Jr., Special Principal Counsel (Ralph S. Tyler, City Solicitor, on brief), for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, and GREENE, JJ.
The Legislature is often faced with balancing opposing interests and making difficult choices. This case discusses some of the lines drawn by the Legislature distinguishing workers' compensation benefits for firefighters as different than for their dependents. We are asked to decide the availability of dual benefits for dependents of firefighters who die from particular occupational diseases. That issue has been addressed and decided by the Legislature.
Both Ernest Johnson (Mr. Johnson) and Daniel Luster (Mr. Luster) were Baltimore City Firefighters who died of cancers that were caused by their repeated contact with toxic substances in the line of duty. The cancer prevented both men from performing their duties as firefighters. Both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Luster are survived by their wives and both women receive benefits from their husbands service pension plans.
The issue before this Court is whether the widows may collect the service pension benefits in addition to the full workers' compensation death benefits, or whether the workers' compensation death benefits must be reduced by the amount of service pension benefits the widows are currently receiving.
We hold that the statute does not permit the dependents to collect full workers' compensation death benefits in addition to service pension benefits.
The facts in both of these cases are undisputed. Consequently, our recitation of the facts is succinct. Mr. Johnson worked for thirty-two years as a Baltimore City firefighter. As a result of his repeated contact with toxic substances encountered in the line of duty, he contracted colon cancer and became unable to perform his duties as a firefighter. Mr. Johnson's average weekly wage as a firefighter was $989.75. On March 11, 1994, Mr. Johnson died from colon cancer.1 Mrs. Johnson was wholly dependent on her husband at the time of his death. She currently receives $603.90 per week in benefits from Mr. Johnson's service pension plan.
Mr. Luster was also a Baltimore City firefighter who contracted cancer as a result of his repeated contacts with toxic substances encountered in the line of duty. Because of the cancer, Mr. Luster was unable to perform his duties as a firefighter and ultimately died from pancreatic cancer2 on August 8, 2000. Mr. Luster's average weekly wage as a firefighter was $821.52. Mrs. Luster was wholly dependent on her husband at the time of his death. She currently receives $294.83 per week in benefits from Mr. Luster's service pension plan.
Both Mrs. Johnson and Mrs. Luster filed workers' compensation claims for death benefits, which were heard by the Workers' Compensation Commission, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, and the Court of Special Appeals. The Commission and the Circuit Court agreed in both cases that the widows were eligible for benefits and that they were permitted to receive a combination of workers' compensation and retirement benefits. In both cases, the Circuit Court granted motions for summary judgment filed by the claimants and denied motions for summary judgment filed by the City. As a result of these rulings, the City appealed in both cases to the Court of Special Appeals.
In a reported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals held that Mrs. Johnson was eligible for benefits, but that her workers' compensation death benefits must be reduced by the amount of service pension benefits that she received.3Mayor & City Council of Baltimore City v. Johnson, 156 Md.App. 569, 596, 847 A.2d 1190 (2004). Mrs. Johnson filed a Petition for Certiorari, which we granted. Johnson v. Baltimore, 382 Md. 687, 856 A.2d 723 (2004).
Similarly, in an unreported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals held that Mrs. Luster was eligible for workers' compensation death benefits, but that they must be reduced by the amount of service pension benefits that she received.4 We also granted certiorari in that case. Luster v. Baltimore, 383 Md. 214, 857 A.2d 1131 (2004). Because the issue before the Court in these cases is identical, we shall decide the cases together and report our decision in one opinion.
Under Md. Rule 2-501(e), summary judgment may be granted if "the motion and response show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the party in whose favor judgment is entered is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Walk v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 382 Md. 1, 14, 852 A.2d 98, 105 (2004). Whether the Circuit Court properly granted summary judgment is a question of law. Id. Therefore, we must decide if the trial court's decision was legally correct. Id.
In this case, we are called upon to interpret a statute. The question before us is purely a legal one. See Salamon v. Progressive Classic Insurance Company, 379 Md. 301, 307, 841 A.2d 858, 862 (2004) ( ); Davis v. Slater, 383 Md. 599, 604, 861 A.2d 78, 80-81 (2004) ( ).
Section 9-502 of the Labor and Employment Article requires employers and insurers to compensate covered employees and their dependents for disability or death that results from an occupational disease.5 This section also limits the liability of employers and insurers by requiring the occupational disease to meet certain requirements in order to be compensable. The section provides in pertinent part:
Md.Code (1991, 1999 Repl.Vol.), § 9-502 of the Labor and Employment Article.
Section 9-503 of the Labor and Employment Article carves out an exception to the general occupational disease provisions noted in § 9-502 by giving special treatment to employees in particular professions who are suffering from particular diseases. Section 9-503 affords those employees the benefit of a presumption that their condition is a compensable occupational disease.6 It also permits those employees to collect workers' compensation benefits in addition to retirement benefits, up to the amount of the employee's weekly salary.7 Section 9-503 © states in pertinent part:
Md.Code (1991, 1999 Repl.Vol., 2004 Supp.) § 9-503(c) of the Labor and Employment Article. Section 9-503(e) provides in pertinent part:
Md.Code (1991, 1999 Repl...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Mayor & City Council of Balt.
...see also Uninsured Employers' Fund v. Danner, 388 Md. 649, 658–59, 882 A.2d 271 (2005) (citing Johnson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 387 Md. 1, 5–6, 874 A.2d 439 (2005)) (noting that “the standard of review in a workers' compensation claim disposed of at summary judgment by the Ci......
-
Malarkey v. State
...into a statute that is not there, even if we are not satisfied with the outcome of the case.'") (quoting Johnson v. Mayor & City Council, 387 Md. 1, 14, 874 A.2d 439 (2005)); Graves v. State, 364 Md. 329, 351, 772 A.2d 1225 (2001) (stating "we have held that this Court `could not invade the......
-
Erie v. Heffernan
...Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning v. Anderson, 395 Md. 172, 182, 909 A.2d 694, 699, (citing Johnson v. Mayor of Balt. City, 387 Md. 1, 11, 874 A.2d 439, 445 (2005); O'Connor v. Balt. County, 382 Md. 102, 113, 854 A.2d 1191, 1198 (2004)). In Johnson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 388 M......
-
Hicks v. State
...into the statute that is not expressly stated or clearly implied, so as to expand its meaning. See Johnson v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 387 Md. 1, 14, 874 A.2d 439 (2005). We have found no Maryland cases that directly speak to the precise issue before us. We are persuaded, however,......
-
A. [§ 14.2] Compensation Benefits
...the offset for government, quasi-public corporation, and military employees); see also Johnson (Ernest) v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 387 Md. 1, 874 A.2d 439 (2005), superseded by statute, Lab. & Empl. § 9-503(e) (holding that widows were not entitled to collect retirement and full comp......