Courtney v. Board of Trustees of Maryland State Retirement Systems

• Decision Date: 26 June 1979
• Docket Number: No. 141,141
• Citation: 402 A.2d 885,285 Md. 356
• Parties: . BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the MARYLAND STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS. Court of Appeals of Maryland
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 356

285 Md. 356

402 A.2d 885

Hugh J. COURTNEY v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the MARYLAND STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS.

No. 141.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 26, 1979.

John F. Calabrese, College Park, (DePaul, Willoner & Kenkel, P. A., College Park, on the brief), for appellant.

Steven P. Resnick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, (Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before MURPHY, C. J., and SMITH, DIGGES, ELDRIDGE, ORTH, COLE and DAVIDSON, JJ.

MURPHY, Chief Judge.

We granted certiorari in this case to consider the claim of Hugh J. Courtney that he was erroneously denied "accidental" disability retirement benefits for mental incapacitation suffered as a result of unusual pressures, strains and conditions of his employment as a librarian with the Prince George's County library system.

Courtney, a member of the Maryland Teachers Retirement System, sought the retirement allowance under the provisions of Maryland Code (1978 Repl.Vol.), Art. 73B, § 86(4a), ¹ which authorize the payment of an "accidental disability retirement benefit" to a member who:

"has been totally and permanently incapacitated for duty as the natural and proximate result of an accident occurring while in the actual performance of duty at some definite time and place, without willful negligence on his part . . . , provided that the medical board shall certify that such member is mentally or physically incapacitated for the further performance of duty . . . ."

In filing his claim for accidental disability benefits, Courtney described the "accident" which caused his mental incapacitation in these words:

"A two year period of being severely understaffed, plus a lack of administrative concern for my problems led to severe frustration and depression concerning by ability to properly function as an Area Branch Librarian and culminated in my having a nervous breakdown."

The Medical Board, after considering the evidence submitted to it, including the report of Courtney's psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Kastner, certified that Courtney was mentally incapacitated for the further performance of duty "due to schizophrenia-paranoid type." It concluded that he be retired with ordinary disability benefits, rather than accidental disability benefits, because his mental incapacitation was not caused "by the accident reported."

Courtney appealed to the Board of Trustees of the Maryland Retirement System and a full evidentiary hearing was held on November 7, 1977. The evidence before the Board revealed that Courtney began working for the Prince George's County library system in 1966. He was promoted in 1969 to the position of Area Branch Librarian at Bowie, with responsibility for satellite branches in Laurel and Marlboro. In this capacity, he was faced with numerous problems, including chronic understaffing, repeated and serious incidents of vandalism, inadequate security, and malfunctioning and unsafe equipment. Courtney's efforts to ameliorate these problems through administrative channels were unsuccessful. As a result, he assumed responsibilities beyond his job description for maintenance and security, worked hours far in excess of his 371/2 hour contractual work week, and strained his relations with the library administration by constantly calling attention to these problems. Mental, as well as physical stress and strain ensued, as evidenced by a co-worker's observation that Courtney's "health deteriorated, he lost a lot of weight, (and) he became more agitated."

On September 3, 1975, Courtney had a conversation with the area branch librarian from Carrolton concerning understaffing in their respective maintenance departments. Finding the substance of that conversation distressing, Courtney returned to work in Bowie where, after ruminating about work-related problems, "he became severely frustrated and depressed." That afternoon, he suffered a nervous breakdown, evidenced by his pallor, speech incoherency, loud belching, and other peculiar actions. He was hospitalized that evening and remained in the hospital for four days. On September 23, he began psychiatric treatment under Dr. Richard Kastner and has since been unable to work.

The evidence disclosed that Courtney had a history of chronic mental disorder. In July of 1963, while serving in the Navy, Courtney was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. He was hospitalized for 11 months while receiving treatment for this illness and was subsequently discharged from the Navy with a 100 percent medical disability rating. In 1969, five years after his discharge, his disability was reduced to 30 percent, a disability rating for which he received partial disability payments from the Navy throughout his full-time employment as a librarian.

Dr. Norman Freeman, Jr., a member of the Medical Board, testified that Courtney's disability was not caused by an accident. He noted Courtney's earlier extensive hospitalization for the same psychosis in 1964. He said that "the nature of the disease we are talking about is a recurrent disease, a disease which is often in remission and exacerbation, and he had this in 1963. Now we are having a recurrence of it in 1975."

Dr. Kastner testified on behalf of Courtney. He said that there was no correlation between the 1963 incidence of paranoid schizophrenia and Courtney's 1975 mental breakdown. He said that the 1963 illness "either had burnt itself out or was extremely quiescent." He concurred, however, with Dr. Freeman's earlier testimony "that no doctor knows the cause of schizophrenia or paranoia." He admitted that Courtney's mental incapacitation "may have been attributable elsewhere." Dr. Kastner nevertheless concluded that the psychosis resulted from an "admixture of (Courtney's) job, the stresses that he had, the mode or method in which he dealt with it, and then the rather unusual interaction between the organization and (Courtney)."

The Board determined from the evidence that Courtney was not entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits. It noted that Courtney had been receiving "a partial disability allowance from the Navy for paranoia-schizophrenia since 1963," and that the Navy considered Courtney "partially disabled from paranoia-schizophrenia before and during the period in which his present disability arose." A majority of the five-member Board concluded that the disability was "attributable to a preexisting condition of paranoia-schizophrenia." Acknowledging that "the conditions under which Mr. Courtney worked contributed to his emotional distress," the Board nevertheless held that "there is no evidence that he suffered an accidental injury of a character causing the mental condition of which he complains." A majority of the Board thus determined "that Mr. Courtney's incapacity for duty is not the natural and proximate result of an accident occurring at some definite time and place while in the actual performance of duty." Two members of the majority also concurred on the ground that "a mental disability which is not the result of a physical injury is not an accident within the meaning of . . . (the statute)." Two members of the Board dissented; they were of the opinion "that the conditions under which claimant worked constituted an unusual condition of employment which caused an accident."

Courtney filed an appeal to the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, as authorized by the Administrative Procedure Act, Code (1978 Repl.Vol.), Art. 41, § 255. In affirming the Board, the court stated:

"Notwithstanding Dr. Kastner's testimony and evidence in the record revealing conditions of employment which might cause great stress and strain (i.e. understaffing, poor security, vandalism, inadequate facilities at the library), the Court after examining all the testimony and documents thereto finds that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's decision that Mr. Courtney's present mental incapacity characterized as paranoia-schizophrenia is not a natural and proximate cause of an accident occurring at some definite time and place in the actual performance of duty (as required by the statute), but rather the Petitioner's mental incapacity was the proximate result of his pre-existing mental illness."

The court further concluded that its finding that the Board's decision was based upon substantial evidence made it unnecessary to reach the question of whether an award of benefits for mental disability under the statute must be limited to situations involving physical injury. Nevertheless, after reviewing the relevant Maryland case law, the court found that the two concurring members did not commit an error of law "in ruling that the Petitioner could not receive accidental benefits because his mental disability was not accompanied by physical injury."

Courtney's appeal to the Court of Special Appeals was based on his contention that the Board's finding that his mental incapacitation was attributable to a preexisting psychiatric illness was not supported by the medical testimony in the record and, secondly, that his mental disability was a direct and proximate result of the unusual strain and conditions of his employment at the Bowie library. Additionally, Courtney urged reversal of the view held by the concurring members of the Board which would require accidental disability claimants alleging mental incapacity to show some manifestation of physical injury. Our grant of certiorari was prior to decision by the Court of Special Appeals.

Our review of the decision of the Board of Trustees, like the circuit court's is based on the test set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act, specifically § 255(g) of Art. 41, which states:

"(g) Affirmance, remand, reversal or modification of decision. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because...