Gang v. Montgomery Cnty.

• Decision Date: 24 June 2019
• Docket Number: No. 67, Sept. Term, 2018,67, Sept. Term, 2018
• Citation: 464 Md. 270,211 A.3d 355
• Parties: Peter GANG v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Maryland
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

464 Md. 270

211 A.3d 355

Peter GANG

v.MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Maryland

No. 67, Sept. Term, 2018

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 24, 2019

Argued by Kenneth M. Berman (Nicole C. Lambdi, Berman, Sobin, Gross, Feldman, & Darby, LLP, Gaithersburg, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.

Argued by Wendy B. Karpel, Associate County Atty. (Kathryn Lloyd, Associate County Atty., Marc P. Hansen, County Atty., Edward B. Lattner, Chief, Division of Government Operations and John P. Markovs, Deputy County Atty., Office of the County Atty., Rockville, MD), on brief, for Respondent.

Argued before: Barbera, C.J., Greene, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Lynne A. Battaglia (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Battaglia, J.

In this worker's compensation case, Officer Peter Gang, the Petitioner herein, was injured while working as a correctional officer for Montgomery County, the Respondent herein. We have been called upon to interpret Section 9-736 of the Labor and Employment Article, Maryland Code (1991, 2016 Repl. Vol),¹ and consider whether the Workers' Compensation Commission is statutorily authorized to modify an order that provided Officer Gang a compensation award for a permanent partial disability resulting from his workplace injury, by retroactively adjusting the rate of compensation as a result of his application within the five-year statutorily defined period of time. The Commission adjusted the rate of compensation because, as a public safety employee, Officer Gang had been entitled to a higher rate of compensation than that which he initially received, a fact that is not in dispute.

On judicial review, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County affirmed the decision of the Commission, but the Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding that the Commission was not statutorily authorized to retroactively modify Officer Gang's rate of compensation. Montgomery Cty. v. Gang , 239 Md. App. 321, 196 A.3d 533 (2018). For the reasons that follow, we shall hold that the Commission may modify the compensation award within five years from the date of the last compensation payment under Section 9-736(b) of the Workers' Compensation Act.

On September 17, 2011, Officer Peter Gang was injured while working as a Montgomery County correctional officer and, subsequently, filed a claim with the Workers' Compensation Commission ("Commission"), seeking compensation. The Commission held a hearing to determine the nature and extent of Officer Gang's injury under the Workers' Compensation Act ("the Act"),² and, thereafter, in May of 2012, issued an Award of Compensation, providing Officer Gang recompense "at the rate of $ 157.00, payable weekly, beginning October 21, 2011, for a period of 70 weeks" based on a 14% industrial loss of the use of his body, which was attributable to the accidental injury.

Nearly four years later, Officer Gang filed a form entitled "Request for Document Correction"³ with the Commission, seeking an adjustment of the 2012 award, alleging that the rate of his compensation was incorrectly calculated, because he qualified as a "public safety employee" under Section 9-628(a)(5) of the Labor and Employment Article,⁴ and as such, was entitled to a greater rate of compensation.⁵ He also posited, in his Request for Document Correction, that the Commission had the power to amend his previous award because it possessed "continuing jurisdiction" over the previous order. The Commission agreed, and issued an amended award retroactively changing Officer Gang's rate of compensation from $ 157.00 to $ 314.00 per week for seventy weeks beginning October 21, 2011.

Montgomery County, however, filed a Request for a Rehearing on the matter with the Commission, stating: "The County did not agree to this document correction and was not asked for its agreement. Please rescind the revised order and reinstate the original order as there was no agreement to the document correction. Moreover, the original order was issued on May 2, 2012, almost four years ago." The Commission held a hearing on the matter, and after hearing arguments, affirmed the Order which increased the rate of compensation for Officer Gang's permanent partial disability award from $ 157.00 to $ 314.00 a week, beginning October 21, 2011, for a period of seventy weeks based on his status as a "public safety employee" at the time of his injury. At the hearing, the Commissioner stated that he believed the Commission had the jurisdiction to correct an error such as this, particularly if it was a mistake made by the Commission of which none of the parties was aware.

Montgomery County filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The Circuit Court held a hearing on the matter, and by order, affirmed the decision of the Commission, reasoning that the Act "provides the Commission with broad authority to make any changes that it believes are justified within five years from the latter of the date of the accident, the date of disablement or the last compensation payment, without the occurrence of" an aggravation, diminution or termination of disability.

Montgomery County appealed the decision of the Circuit Court to the Court of Special Appeals, and in a reported opinion,⁶ our intermediate appellate court reversed the decision of the Circuit Court, holding that the Commission erred in retroactively modifying Officer Gang's workers' compensation award. Montgomery Cty. v. Gang , 239 Md. App. 321, 196 A.3d 533 (2018). The Court first noted that "although the revisory power of the Commission under § 9-736 is broad, it is not unlimited[,]" id. at 329, 196 A.3d at 538 (quoting Sealy Furniture of Maryland v. Miller , 356 Md. 462, 468, 740 A.2d 594 (1999) ), and concluded that the Act in fact limited the Commission's ability to reopen a claim and modify an award to situations in which the award was "based on a legal mistake in light of case law," id. at 330–32, 196 A.3d at 539 (citing Subsequent Injury Fund v. Baker , 40 Md. App. 339, 392 A.2d 94 (1978) ), or based on a "statutory revision," Gang , 239 Md. App. at 331–32, 196 A.3d at 539 (citing Waters v. Pleasant Manor Nursing Home , 127 Md. App. 587, 736 A.2d 358 (1999), aff'd , 361 Md. 82, 760 A.2d 663 (2000) ). It also concluded that the Commission may have the power to correct the rate of compensation prospectively but not retrospectively. Gang , 239 Md. App. at 332–33, 196 A.3d at 540.

The Court also rejected Officer Gang's argument that the Commission was "merely ‘correcting a clerical error’ " because the 2012 order constituted a final award and "[n]o action was taken by [Officer Gang] to appeal or have the Commission reconsider its decision." Id. at 333, 196 A.3d at 540. Thus, "under the circumstances of this case," the Court posited, "four years after the final award, the Commission's authority was limited to readjustment of a future rate of compensation upon a worsening or diminution of condition." Id. Finally, the intermediate appellate court noted that the Commission's actions "impermissibly extended the five-year time limit [in which to file for a modification], and thus, exceeded its statutory authority." Id. at 333–34, 196 A.3d at 540–41 (citing Seal v. Giant Food, Inc. , 116 Md. App. 87, 96, 695 A.2d 597 (1997) ).

Officer Gang then filed a petition for certiorari, which we granted, Gang v. Montgomery County , 462 Md. 554, 201 A.3d 1227 (2019), to consider various questions, all of which we have rephrased and abbreviated into one⁷ :

Does the Workers' Compensation Commission have the authority to reopen a claim and retroactively readjust a rate of compensation within five years from the date of the last compensation payment when it finds that, based on a mistake or error, the injured employee received a lower rate of compensation than that to which he was otherwise entitled?

For the reasons that follow, we shall hold that the Commission had the authority to reopen Officer Gang's award of permanent partial disability compensation and retroactively adjust his rate of compensation because his request for such, which was made within five years from the date of his last compensation, was based on a mistake or error.

DISCUSSION

The Maryland Workers' Compensation Act was enacted by Chapter 800 of the Maryland Laws of 1914. The purpose of the Act is " ‘to protect workers and their families from hardships inflicted by work-related injuries by providing workers with compensation for loss of earning capacity resulting from accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment.’ " Roberts v. Montgomery Cty. , 436 Md. 591, 603, 84 A.3d 87, 95 (2014) (quoting Johnson v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore , 430 Md. 368, 377, 61 A.3d 33, 38 (2013) (internal citations omitted)). Employers also are the beneficiary of the Act because they no longer have to face the spectre of suits and inconsistent verdicts.

Polomski v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore , 344 Md. 70, 76–77, 684 A.2d 1338, 1341 (1996) ("[T]he Act also recognizes the need to protect employers from the unpredictable nature and expense of litigation" and relieves them "from the vagaries of tort liability." (citations omitted)).

The Act is remedial in nature and "should be construed as liberally in favor of injured employees as its provisions will permit in order to effectuate its benevolent purposes. Any uncertainty in the law should be resolved in favor of the claimant." Stachowski v. Sysco Food Services of Baltimore, Inc. , 402 Md. 506, 513, 937 A.2d 195, 199 (2007) (quoting Design Kitchen v. Lagos , 388 Md. 718, 724, 882 A.2d 817, 821 (2005) (internal citation omitted)); see also Roberts , 436 Md. at 603, 84 A.3d at 95 ; Montgomery Cty. v. Deibler , 423 Md. 54, 61, 31 A.3d 191, 195 (2011). Furthermore, in light of the Act's benevolent and remedial nature, the statutory scheme also evinces an intent to treat "public safety employees" differently by awarding them a higher rate of compensation where so provided. Section 9-628 of the Labor and...