Holmes v. Wal Mart

• Decision Date: 02 September 2009
• Docket Number: No. 0036, September Term, 2008.,0036, September Term, 2008.
• Parties: Larry HOLMES, Sr., et ux. v. WAL MART STORES, INC., et al.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

979 A.2d 744 187 Md. App. 690 Larry HOLMES, Sr., et ux.
v.
WAL MART STORES, INC., et al. No. 0036, September Term, 2008. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. September 2, 2009.

[979 A.2d 745]

Jeff Messing of Baltimore, for appellant.

Richard W. Scheiner (Mary M. Wiethorn, Semmes, Bowen & Semmes on the brief), Baltimore, for appellee.

Panel:JAMES R. EYLER, GRAEFF, KEHOE, JJ.

KEHOE, J.

The issue before us is whether MD.CODE ANN. LAB. & EMPL. § 9-632 (1991, 2008

979 A.2d 746

Repl.Vol.) entitles appellant, Larry D. Holmes, Sr., to pursue the claim of his deceased spouse, Patricia L. Holmes, for permanent disability benefits under the Maryland Workers' Compensation Act (the "Act")¹ that might have been awarded to her had she not died prior to entry of an award.

BACKGROUND

The facts of the case are undisputed.

On November 3, 1999, Mrs. Holmes suffered an injury in the course of her employment with Wal Mart Stores, Inc., one of the appellees.² On December 9, 1999, she filed a claim for compensation with the Workers' Compensation Commission (the "Commission"). The Commission awarded Mrs. Holmes temporary total disability benefits. On or about November 28, 2006, Mrs. Holmes attained the maximum amount of medical improvement from her work-related injuries; in the normal course of events, she would have applied to the Commission for an award of either permanent partial or permanent total disability benefits. However, before she could do so, Mrs. Holmes died, on December 4, 2006, from causes not related to her injuries.

On May 7, 2007, Mrs. Holmes' attorney filed a post-mortem issue seeking, inter alia, permanent disability benefits.

On September 19, 2007, the Commission held a hearing on the nature and extent of Mrs. Holmes' permanent disability. At the hearing, both parties agreed that the appellant's right, if any, to pursue the claim of his deceased spouse is controlled by § 9-632 of the Act, which provides in pertinent part:

(b) In general. — If a covered employee dies from a cause that is not compensable under this title, the right to compensation that is payable under this Part IV of this subtitle and unpaid on the date of death survives in accordance with this section.

(c) Surviving dependents. — If there are surviving dependents of the covered employee, the right to compensation survives to the surviving dependents as the Commission may determine.

(d) No surviving dependents; obligation to support surviving spouse. — If there are no surviving dependents of the covered employee and, on the date of death, the covered employee had a legal obligation to support a surviving spouse, the right to compensation survives jointly to:

(1) the surviving spouse of the covered employee; and

(2) the surviving minor children of the covered employee.

(e) No surviving dependents or obligation to support surviving spouse. — If there are no surviving dependents and, on the date of death, the covered employee did not have a legal obligation to support a surviving spouse, the right to compensation survives only to the surviving minor children of the covered employee.

Appellant was the only witness at the hearing. He testified without contradiction that he and Mrs. Holmes had been married in 1969, that they separated some time thereafter, but that they had reconciled and lived together at their residence as husband and wife for approximately

979 A.2d 747

three years prior to Mrs. Holmes' death. He stated that, during that period of time, he and his wife combined his income with her workers' compensation benefits to meet their living expenses. Appellant testified that his monthly income was approximately $1,100 and that Mrs. Holmes' benefits amounted to $330 per week. Finally, Mr. Holmes testified that, at the time of her death, Mrs. Holmes had no source of income, was in very poor health, and was unable to work.

The parties stipulated to the Commission that appellant was not a "dependent" of Mrs. Holmes for the purposes of § 9-632(c)³ and that Mrs. Holmes had no surviving minor children. Since appellant's contention that he was entitled to pursue his late wife's claim was based solely upon § 9-632(d), the issue before the Commission was whether appellant had demonstrated that Mrs. Holmes had a legal obligation to support him at the time of her death.

Appellant argued to the Commission that his late spouse had a legal obligation to support him at the time of her death based upon Maryland's criminal non-support statute, MD.CODE ANN. FAM. LAW § 10-201 (1984, 2006 Repl.Vol.)⁴ Appellant contended that Maryland recognizes a general obligation of spouses to support one another. For their part, appellees asserted that the term "legal obligation to support ..." was intended by the legislature to be limited to court-ordered alimony or support payable pursuant to a separation agreement or other contract. Appellees contended that any other interpretation of the term would render other portions of § 9-632(d) superfluous:

Had the legislature intended for the right of survival to flow to a surviving spouse automatically under subsection[](d), there would be no need to include the language mandating a legal obligation to support the surviving spouse at the time of death. The legislature could have merely stated that if there are no surviving dependents of the covered employee, the right of compensation survives jointly to 1) the surviving spouse and 2) the surviving minor children.

The Commission determined that any right to further benefits did not survive Mrs. Holmes' death. The Commission's decision stated that "insufficient evidence was presented to establish that the claimant [i.e. Mrs. Holmes] had a legal obligation to support her surviving spouse. ... Therefore, the right to compensation does not survive in this claim; and the issue of permanency is moot."

Appellant filed a timely petition for judicial review. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The arguments to the circuit court were, in essence, elaborations of the parties' respective contentions to the Commission. In rendering its decision, the circuit court characterized F.L. § 10-201 as pertaining only to "really criminal non-support issues" and stated:

979 A.2d 748

So I think it's a very interesting legal issue, I think it's a very close legal issue. But, unfortunately, there are no cases exactly on point.

But having considered the provisions of the — or the provisions of the Code as well as that case,[⁵] the Court will conclude in this case that pursuant to 9-632 that Mrs. Holmes did not have an obligation to — a legal obligation to support her husband.

Accordingly, the circuit court denied appellant's motion and granted the motion of appellee, thus affirming the decision of the Commission.

Appellant filed a timely appeal to this Court.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Appellant presents two issues in his brief, which we have consolidated and reworded as follows:

Did the circuit court err in affirming the decision of the Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission that Patricia L. Holmes' right to compensation did not survive her death because she did not have a "legal obligation to support a surviving spouse" on the date of her death?[⁶]

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we hold that § 9-632(d) provides that a deceased worker's right to permanent partial disability benefits survives to his or her spouse unless the surviving spouse has agreed to or has been adjudicated to have given up his or her right of support.

Standard of Review

Section 9-745(b) of the Act provides that decisions of the Commission are presumptively correct on appeal and that a party challenging a decision of the Commission has the burden of proof to demonstrate error. However, as we recently noted, the presumption of correctness afforded to decisions of the Commission extends to questions of fact but not of law. Simmons v. Comfort Suites Hotel, 185 Md. App. 203, 211, 968 A.2d 1123 (2009) (citing Beyer v. Decker, 159 Md. 289, 291, 150 A. 804 (1930), Board of Education v. Spradlin, 161 Md.App. 155, 173, 867 A.2d 370 (2005), and Symons v. R.D. Grier & Sons Co., 10 Md.App. 498, 500, 271 A.2d 398 (1970)).

The circuit court granted summary judgment on the basis that, in light of the uncontested facts, Mrs. Holmes' right to compensation did not devolve upon appellant pursuant to § 9-632. Review of a

979 A.2d 749

decision to grant summary judgment is de novo. O'Connor v. Baltimore County, 382 Md. 102, 110, 854 A.2d 1191 (2004); Hines v. French, 157 Md.App. 536, 549-50, 852 A.2d 1047 (2004).

In reaching its decision, the circuit court interpreted and applied both § 9-632 and F.L. § 10-201. When an appellate court reviews a trial court's "interpretation and application of Maryland constitutional, statutory or case law, [the appellate court] must determine whether the trial court's conclusions are `legally correct' under a de novo standard of review." Schisler v. State, 394 Md. 519, 535, 907 A.2d 175 (2006) (citing Garfink v. Cloisters at Charles, Inc., 392 Md. 374, 383, 897 A.2d 206 (2006); Gray v. State, 388 Md. 366, 374-75, 879 A.2d 1064 (2005); Nesbit v. GEICO, 382 Md. 65, 72, 854 A.2d 879 (2004); and Walter v. Gunter, 367 Md. 386, 392, 788 A.2d 609 (2002)).

The Parties' Contentions

Since appellant conceded that he was not dependant upon Mrs. Holmes when she was injured, his right to enforce her claim for permanent disability benefits rests upon § 9-632(d) of the Act. Appellant argues that the "plain language" of the statute provides that when a claimant who is under a legal obligation to support a surviving spouse dies, her claim survives to the spouse and the claimant's minor children, if any. Since the Act does not provide a definition of "a legal obligation to support a surviving spouse," appellant looks to F.L. § 10-201. In his brief, he states:

Section 10-201(a) of the Family Law Article ... states: `A spouse may not willfully fail to provide for the support of the...