Carey v. Chessie Computer Services

• Decision Date: 18 July 2002
• Docket Number: No. 125,125
• Citation: 369 Md. 741,802 A.2d 1060
• Parties: Carole J. CAREY v. CHESSIE COMPUTER SERVICES, INC., et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

802 A.2d 1060

369 Md. 741

Carole J. CAREY v. CHESSIE COMPUTER SERVICES, INC., et al.

No. 125, Sept. Term, 2001.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

July 18, 2002.

Bernard J. Sevel (Adam J. Sevel of Sevel & Sevel, P.A., on brief), Baltimore, for Petitioner.

David A. Skomba (Laura L. Stephens of Franklin & Prokopik, on brief), Baltimore, for Respondents.

Argued before BELL, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ.

WILNER, J.

Prior to 1963, if an employee incurred an occupational injury that, although not in itself disabling, when coupled with a previous impairment rendered the employee permanently disabled, the employer was exposed to liability under the Workers' Compensation Law for the cumulative effect of the prior and subsequent impairments. That exposure served as a disincentive for employers to hire handicapped workers.

In an effort to overcome that disincentive and encourage employers to hire persons with existing disabilities, the Legislature, in 1963, created a balanced mechanism to provide fair compensation to the subsequently injured employee and yet limit the liability of the employer. In what is now Maryland Code, § 9-802(a) of the Labor and Employment Article (LE), the General Assembly directed, in relevant part, that if an employee, already having a permanent impairment, suffers a subsequent occupational injury that results in a permanent disability that is substantially greater, due to the combined effect of the previous impairment and the subsequent injury, than it would have been from the subsequent injury alone, the employer is liable only for the compensation payable for the subsequent injury.

To make up the difference, the Legislature created the Subsequent Injury Fund (SIF) and provided for additional compensation to be paid by that Fund if (1) the previous impairment was one that was likely to be a hindrance to the person's employment, (2) the combined effect of the previous impairment and the subsequent injury results in a permanent disability exceeding 50% of the body as a whole, and (3) each is compensable for at least 125 weeks. See LE § 9-802(b). The intent of the Legislature, currently expressed in LE § 9-801, was that the total compensation to the employee be equal to the amount payable for the combined effects of the previous impairment and the subsequent injury. For some of the history of the statute, see Subsequent Injury Fund v. Pack, 250 Md. 306, 308, 242 A.2d 506, 508 (1968) and McKenzie v. C.C. Kottcamp & Sons, 311 Md. 54, 57-58, 532 A.2d 703, 704-05 (1987).¹

Although the 1963 Act provided for participation by SIF in proceedings before the Workers' Compensation Commission and required the Commission to make certain findings regarding the liability of SIF, it made no provision for allowing SIF to seek judicial review of an award against it. See Pack, supra, 250 Md. at 311,

242 A.2d at 509 (SIF is "nothing more than a glomerate of money, to be disbursed by the State Treasurer on written orders of the Commission" and is therefore not a "person" entitled to seek judicial review of a Commission order to pay). That disability was corrected by legislation in 1969. See 1969 Md. Laws, ch. 394; see also Subsequent Injury Fund v. Ehrman, 89 Md.App. 741, 747, 599 A.2d 875, 878 (1992).

In 1974, the General Assembly perceived a remaining gap—the situation present here, in which SIF had not been made a party to the proceeding before the Commission but either the employer or the claimant desired to have its liability under § 9-802 determined in a judicial review action—and addressed that matter through the enactment of what is now LE § 9-807, allowing a party to implead SIF in the judicial review action. As a procedural mechanism for invoking § 9-802, LE § 9-807 provides that, in any case involving payment from SIF, the Commission or any party in interest shall give written notice to the State Treasurer or the attorney for SIF and implead SIF in writing. Section 9-807(b) permits SIF to be impleaded at any stage of the proceeding, either before the Commission or on judicial review in a Circuit Court or the Court of Special Appeals. In tacit recognition of the fact that the factual bases for liability on the part of SIF must be determined in the first instance by the Commission, however, § 9-807(b)(2) provides that, if SIF is impleaded in a judicial review action pending in either a Circuit Court or the Court of Special Appeals, "the court shall (i) suspend further proceedings; and (ii) remand the case to the Commission for further proceedings to give [SIF] an opportunity to defend against the claim."

The issue presented to us in this somewhat convoluted case is whether the mandate in § 9-807(b)(2) that the court, upon an impleading of SIF, suspend further proceedings and remand the case to the Commission, effectively withdraws jurisdiction from the court to do otherwise, and thus makes any order or judgment entered by the court in derogation of that direction a nullity, or simply directs the court in how to exercise its jurisdiction in that circumstance. In that latter event, which we shall hold to be the case, any order or judgment entered in defiance of that mandate, though wrong and subject to reversal or vacation on appeal, is not in excess of the court's jurisdiction and is therefore effective unless and until reversed or vacated on appeal.

BACKGROUND

In November, 1992, petitioner, Carole Carey, filed a workers' compensation claim, alleging that on August 3, 1992, while in the employ of respondent, Chessie Computer Systems, Inc., she injured her back, neck, and knees when a chair she was about to sit on collapsed and tipped over, causing her to fall. The case was essentially put on hold for four years, while petitioner unsuccessfully pursued a Federal Employees Liability Act claim, apparently on the theory that her employer was CSX, a railroad subject to that Act. Not until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a judgment that there was no Federal jurisdiction did petitioner pursue her State workers' compensation claim, which was heard in November, 1996.

Notwithstanding essentially uncontested evidence well-known to respondent that, in 1983, petitioner had sustained another work-related injury to her neck while working for CSX, that she had undergone surgery for that injury, and that she had made and settled a FELA claim based on the injury, respondent, though contesting whether she sustained an accidental injury in August, 1992, did not implead SIF. On November 18, 1996, the Commission found that petitioner sustained a compensable accidental injury on August 3, 1992, and that, as a result of that injury, she was temporarily totally disabled from August 4, 1992, to November 14, 1994. It made no finding with respect to the preexisting injury. On the findings it made, the Commission ordered respondent to pay petitioner $436 a week for that 27-month period, less wages actually paid, and to pay certain medical expenses in accordance with the Commission's Medical Fee Guide.²

Respondent sought judicial review of that order in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County in December, 1996. Ten months later, after discovery was completed, petitioner moved for summary judgment. From the accompanying memorandum and petitioner's argument at the hearing, it appears that the motion was based on the presumption of correctness of the Commission's decision, supplemented by (1) respondent's admission in discovery that petitioner had sustained an occupational accident on August 3, 1992, and (2) respondent's failure, in response to discovery requests, to adduce any facts that would indicate that petitioner's injuries and disability were not attributable to that accident. In response to that motion, respondent filed a motion to implead SIF, contending, for the first time, that SIF should be a party in the case. Noting LE § 9-807(b), respondent asked the court to "grant the Motion to Implead the Subsequent Injury Fund" and remand the case to the Commission.

At a hearing on the motions, petitioner argued that, because the motion for summary judgment was filed first and because respondent failed to show any reason why it should not be granted, the court should grant that motion and then remand the case. Petitioner urged that SIF would not be prejudiced by that approach—that it could make whatever defense it chose without regard to the judgment against the employer—but that, as respondent already had the opportunity to present its case to the Commission, judicial economy would be served by confirming its liability. Respondent offered no substantive defense to the motion but contended that § 9-807(b) was jurisdictional in nature and that, upon the filing of the motion to implead SIF, the court lost jurisdiction to do anything other than remand the case— that it was without jurisdiction to enter a summary judgment. The court, through Judge Turnbull, disagreed with respondent and, treating the motion to implead SIF as just that—a motion that required a court response—decided that, because the motion for summary judgment was filed first, it would grant that motion and then grant the motion to implead. By ruling on the motions in that order, Judge Turnbull believed that there could be no jurisdictional impediment to his granting the summary judgment.³

Respondent filed a timely motion under Maryland Rule 2-534 to alter or amend the judgment, asserting, for the first time in the judicial review proceeding, that there were genuine issues of material fact in dispute. That motion was denied on December 11, 1997. No appeal was taken from the judgment, and the case returned to the Commission pursuant to the order of remand.

For whatever reason, no further proceedings were held before the Commission for two years. On January 18, 2000, following a hearing, the Commission entered an order declaring that respondent had failed to comply with the November 18, 1996...