Couret-Rios v. Fire & Police Employees' Ret. Sys. of Balt.

• Decision Date: 01 May 2020
• Docket Number: No. 36, Sept. Term, 2019,36, Sept. Term, 2019
• Citation: 468 Md. 508,227 A.3d 637
• Parties: Carlos COURET-RIOS v. FIRE & POLICE EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF the CITY OF BALTIMORE
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

468 Md. 508

227 A.3d 637

Carlos COURET-RIOS

v.FIRE & POLICE EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF the CITY OF BALTIMORE

No. 36, Sept. Term, 2019

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

May 1, 2020

Argued by Duane A. Verderaime (O'Connor & Verderaime, P.C. of Baltimore, MD) on brief for Petitioner.

Argued by Michael Redmond, Co-Director (Rachel Simmonsen, Co-Director and Andre M. Davis, City Solicitor, Baltimore City Department of Law of Baltimore, MD and Abraham M. Schwartz, General Counsel and Heather R. Pensyl, Associate General Counsel, Fire and Employees’ Retirement System of Baltimore, MD) on brief for Respondent.

Barbera, C.J., McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Sally D. Adkins (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Getty, J.

Under the Fire and Police Employees’ Retirement System (the "F&P Retirement System" or "F&P") compensation statute, police officers are potentially eligible for two different levels of disability benefits: a less substantial non-line-of-duty ("NLOD") level of benefits; or a more substantial line-of-duty ("LOD") level of benefits. See Balt. City Code, Art. 22, § 34. Officers are only eligible for LOD benefits if their disability stems from an injury that occurred in the line of duty and the injury caused a permanent "physical incapacity." See id. §§ 33(l )(4)(iii); 33(l )(11)(ii)(A). In contrast, officers are eligible for NLOD benefits if the injury caused a permanent "mental[ ] or physical[ ] incapacit[y]" that prevents the officer from performing their job duties, whether or not the injury occurred in the line of duty. See id. §§ 34(c)(1) (emphasis added). In other words, benefits for NLOD disability may be awarded on the basis of a mental or physical incapacity, but benefits for LOD disability can only be awarded based on a physical incapacity.

Petitioner Carlos Couret-Rios suffered a concussion in the course of his duties as a Baltimore City police officer. As a result of the brain injury

, Officer Couret-Rios suffers from memory loss and attention deficits. Officer Couret-Rios filed for and was granted LOD disability benefits after a hearing examiner concluded that Officer Couret-Rios was permanently physically incapacitated. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City affirmed, but the Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding that Officer Couret-Rios's incapacities were mental, rather than physical.

We must now determine if the hearing examiner erred when she awarded LOD disability benefits based on a finding of fact that Officer Couret-Rios suffered from memory loss and attention deficits as a result of a mild traumatic brain injury

. For

the reasons that follow, we disagree with the Court of Special Appeals and hold that the hearing examiner did not err in granting LOD retirement benefits.

BACKGROUND

A. The F&P Retirement Compensation Statute.

The F&P Retirement System is a benefit system statutorily established to provide retirement allowances and death benefits to firefighters and police officers ("Members") paid by the Mayor & City Council of Baltimore (the "City"). See Balt. City Code, Art. 22, §§ 29–49. The F&P statute prescribes contributions from the Members and the City to fund the Retirement System, which is managed by a Board of Trustees that has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the Members. Through the rules established by the statute and the procedures established by the Board of Trustees, the Retirement System pursues the goals of providing life-long benefits to retired and disabled Members and ensures that the System remains solvent so that each Member can draw benefits when needed.

The statute establishes two different levels of disability benefits for the Members of the F&P Retirement System: a less substantial NLOD level of benefits; and a more substantial LOD level of benefits. See Balt. City Code, Art. 22, § 34. Members are only eligible for LOD benefits if their disability stems from an injury that occurred in the line of duty and the injury caused a permanent "physical incapacity." See id. §§ 33(l )(4)(iii); 33(l )(11)(ii)(A). In contrast, Members are eligible for NLOD benefits if the injury caused a permanent "mental[ ] or physical[ ] incapacit[y]" that prevents the Member from performing their job duties, whether or not the injury occurred in the line of duty. See id. §§ 34(c)(1) (emphasis added). In other words, benefits for NLOD disability may be awarded on the basis of a mental or physical incapacity, but benefits for LOD disability can only be awarded based on a physical incapacity. See Bd. of Trs. of Fire & Police Emps.’ Ret. Sys. of Balt. v. Kielczewski , 77 Md. App. 581, 591–93, 551 A.2d 485 (1989).

The dispute in this case is not whether Officer Couret-Rios should receive disability retirement benefits but how substantial those benefits are allowed to be under the F&P retirement compensation statute. To demonstrate the benefit dichotomy, we begin with the language of the statute. The first pertinent portion of the statute is § 33(l ):

(l ) Panel of hearing examiners.

(1) There is a panel of hearing examiners, composed of persons with a demonstrated knowledge and competence in disability claims evaluation. ...

* * *

(4) (i) Any non-line-of-duty disability or line-of-duty disability claimant must apply to the Board of Trustees.

(ii) The application must include a medical certification of disability and all supporting medical documentation, on a form prescribed by the Board of Trustees, in which the member must state that she or he has suffered a disability and that the disability prevents her or him from further performance of the duties of her or his job classification.

(iii) If the claim is for a line-of-duty disability benefit, the member must also state that the physical incapacity was the result of an injury arising out of and in the course of the actual performance of her or his duty, without willful negligence on her or his part.

(iv) Any member who has joined this system on or after July 1, 1979, and who applies for a line-of-duty disability benefit must also state that the disability resulted from an injury that occurred within 5 years of the date of her or his application.

* * *

(7) A hearing examiner shall conduct hearings on all matters involving non-line-of-duty disability claims, line-of-duty disability claims, ... and any related matters arising out of these claims. ...

* * *

(10) (i) At the hearing, the member has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence:

(A) the nature and extent of his or her disability; and

(B) that the disability prevents him or her from the further performance of the duties of his or her job classification.

(ii) If the matter involves a line-of-duty disability claim, the member has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the disability was the result of an injury arising out of and in the course of the actual performance of duty, without willful negligence on the member's part.

* * *

(11) The hearing examiner shall determine the following:

(i) whether the member has suffered an injury or illness of such a nature as to preclude the member from the further performance of the duties of his or her job classification; (ii) if the claim is for line-of-duty disability benefits:

(A) whether the physical incapacity is the result of an injury arising out of and in the course of the actual performance of duty, without willful negligence on the member's part;

(B) whether the disability qualifies under § 34(e) ....

(C) for a member who joined this system on or after July 1, 1979, whether the disability resulted from an injury that occurred within 5 years before the date of the members’ application ....

* * *

(12) The hearing examiner shall issue written findings of fact that set forth the reasons for the hearing examiner's determination. If either party to the hearing is aggrieved by the hearing examiner's determination, that party may seek judicial review of the determination by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. The review shall be sought and heard as provided for in the Maryland Rules, with the exception that the review shall be heard on the record only, on a right-of-way basis. The final determination of the hearing examiner is presumptively correct and may not be disturbed on review except when arbitrary, illegal, capricious, or discriminatory. A party to the judicial review may appeal the court's final judgment to the Court of Special Appeals in accordance with the Maryland Rules of Procedure.

In large part, § 33(l ) provides the procedures for administrative hearings. At the outset, disability claimants must apply to the Board of Trustees. Id. § 33(l )(4)(i). The application must include: (1) medical certification of disability and all supporting medical documentation, stating, among other things, that the disability prevents the claimant from further performance of their duties; and (2) for LOD claims, a statement that (i) "the physical incapacity was the result of an injury arising out of and in the course of the actual performance of her or his duty, without willful negligence on her or his part"; and (ii) "the disability resulted from an injury that occurred within 5 years of the date of her or his application." Id. § 33(l )(4)(ii)–(iv) (emphasis added).

On receipt of an application, the claimant must be medically examined by a physician selected by the Board of Trustees. Id. § 33(l )(5). A panel of hearing examiners then schedule a hearing during which one of the hearing examiners conducts an informal hearing (i.e., without strict compliance of the rules of evidence) that includes testimony and the production of documents. Id. § 33(l )(6)–(8). Despite the informality, the hearings are adversarial—the City Solicitor's office represents the Board of Trustees and the claimant has the right to counsel. Id. § 33(l )(9).

At the hearing, the claimant has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) "the nature and extent of his or her disability"; and (2) "that the disability prevents him ...