Hubbel v. FIRE/POLICE RETIREMENT
Decision Date | 27 May 2010 |
Citation | 995 A.2d 1082,192 Md. App. 742 |
Parties | Diane HUBBEL v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the FIRE & POLICE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF the CITY OF BALTIMORE. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Paul D. Bakman (Emily C. Malarkey, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.
Herbert Burgunder, Jr., and William R. Phelan, Jr. (George A. Nilson, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.
Panel: DEBORAH S. EYLER, MATRICCIANI, LAWRENCE F. RODOWSKY (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
The appellant, Diane Hubbel, is the widow of Donald W. Hubbel (Cpt. Hubbel), who was a captain in the Baltimore City Fire Department. Appellant seeks line-of-duty death benefits from the appellee, the Board of Trustees of the Fire & Police Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baltimore (the Board). Appellant is aggrieved by the denial of her claim by the Board's Examiner and the affirmance of that decision by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.
Cpt. Hubbel died on February 1, 2008, at his home in Bel Air, Harford County, Maryland. He suffered a fatal heart attack, at age forty-two, almost immediately after he had been running on a treadmill in his basement. The Baltimore City Code (2009), Article 22, "Retirement Systems," § 33(l)(11)(iii)(A) (the Ordinance) provides that, if a claim against the Board is one for line-of-duty death benefits, the Board's hearing Examiner shall determine "whether the death arose out of and in the course of the actual performance of duty." Appellant's claim is based upon the circumstances described below.
Cpt. Hubbel was a member and an assistant team leader of the fourteen-member Special Rescue Operations Team (the Team) of the Baltimore City Fire Department. As described by the leader of the Team, Lt. Scott Michael Berbach, the Team responds to events that are above the daily duties of a normal firefighter, e.g., high-rise building fires, swift water rescues, and trench and building collapses. Even when not on duty at his regularly assigned station, Cpt. Hubbel, as a member of the Team, was on call twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, unless excused.
Each member of the Team was required annually to pass a physical fitness examination which consisted of a one mile run, sit ups, and push ups. To pass the running portion of the test, a forty-two year old was allowed nine minutes. If a member of the Team failed the fitness test, the test could be retaken within six months. Any firefighter who again failed the fitness test could not remain on the Team. That person nevertheless continued his or her regular duties in the Department, but would not be paged for Team responses.
Members of the Team are chosen upon application, interview, and "eventually training and the physical fitness assessment." Members sign a written pledge to follow the policies for training and to be "physically prepared to do your job."
The City of Baltimore does not provide any physical fitness trainers, equipment or facilities for Team members. They are expected to maintain fitness on their own.
At the time of his death on February 1, 2008, Cpt. Hubbel was five feet ten inches in height and weighed 224 pounds. He had been running on his treadmill in preparation for his annual physical on February 8, 2008, and he had completed one mile in about eleven minutes. After cooling down, he got off of the treadmill, grabbed his chest, and fell over. He was pronounced dead on arrival at Upper Chesapeake Medical Center.
A postmortem examination of Cpt. Hubbel was performed the next day by a State Medical Examiner. Examination of Cpt. Hubbel's cardiovascular system revealed that "there was 80% calcified atherosclerotic stenosis of the left main coronary artery, 70% calcified atherosclerotic stenosis of the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery and 95% stenosis of the right coronary artery." The Medical Examiner certified the cause of death to be "Hypertensive Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease."
In her application for line-of-duty death benefits, appellant described the circumstances of Cpt. Hubbel's death to be, "training for an upcoming drill given by BCFD." In response to the claim, the Board assembled the adult lifetime medical history of Cpt. Hubbel, consisting of approximately 190 pages. It did not include the report of the emergency medical technicians who first responded or the post-death records from Upper Chesapeake Medical Center. Among the medical records was the report of a cardiac consultation in March 2006, following a heart scanning which revealed significant calcification, mostly in the distribution of the left anterior descending artery. That report included Cpt. Hubbel's family history. His mother had coronary artery bypass grafting surgery at age thirty-two, had a heart transplant at age forty-nine, and had died at age fifty-six of lung cancer.1 Cpt. Hubbel's father was alive and well in his sixties. At age fifty-nine he had had coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. The cardiologist's impression of Cpt. Hubbel was:
At the hearing before the Examiner, each party introduced a written medical report which included an opinion. Dr. Jeffrey D. Gaber, M.D., FACP, who was engaged by the appellant, reported that he had reviewed the Fire Department records on Cpt. Hubbel, his training, the circumstances of his death, the autopsy report, and the Manual of Procedure Policy for the Team.2 He stated that he was "unaware of the family history or any other medical issues." He concluded:
The Board presented a report from John Parkerson, M.D., M.S. His report synopsised the medical records beginning in 1998. Dr. Parkerson concluded:
The Examiner found in favor of the Board and rested her decision on two grounds. She held that Cpt. Hubbel's "actions in exercising on his treadmill at home while off duty do not constitute the actual performance of his duties as a firefighter." This conclusion was predicated on the language of the Ordinance requiring that the injury arise in the course of the "actual performance of duty." The Examiner reasoned that "actual performance of duty" required a stricter interpretation than that applied in Workers' Compensation Act cases to the requirement that an injury be "in the course of employment." Maryland Code (1991, 2008 Repl.Vol.), § 9-101(b)(1) of the Labor and Employment Article (the Act). The Act defines "accidental personal injury" to mean "an accidental injury that arises out of and in the course of employment."
In addition, the Examiner relied on an alternative ground of decision. She said there was an issue of medical causation, namely, whether the claimant had "met the burden of proof to show that the exercise itself caused the heart attack." On this issue the Examiner concluded:
From the denial of line-of-duty death benefits, the appellant sought judicial review in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. That court affirmed, relying on the Examiner's "actual performance of duty" analysis.
From that judgment, this appeal was timely...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. City of Annapolis Historic Pres. Comm'n.
...ordinances relevant and applicable to the property that is the subject of the dispute.’ ” Hubbel v. Bd. of Trs. of the Fire & Police Employees' Ret. Sys., 192 Md.App. 742, 749, 995 A.2d 1082 (2010) (quoting P Overlook LLLP v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Wash. County, 183 Md.App. 233, 248, 960 ......
-
Couret-Rios v. Fire & Police Employees' Ret. Sys. of Balt.
...error of law." Balt. Lutheran High Sch. Ass'n , 302 Md. at 662, 490 A.2d 701 ; see also Hubbel v. Bd. of Trs. of Fire & Police Emps.’ Ret. Sys. of Balt. , 192 Md. App. 742, 749, 995 A.2d 1082 (2010) (noting that appellate courts "can reverse the agency's legal decisions ‘where the legal con......
- SEMINARY v. DULANEY VALLEY
-
Couret-Rios v. Fire & Police Emps.' Ret. Sys. of Balt.
...agency made an error of law." Balt. Lutheran High Sch. Ass'n, 302 Md. at 662; see also Hubbel v. Bd. of Trs. of Fire & Police Emps.' Ret. Sys. of Balt., 192 Md. App. 742, 749 (2010) (noting that appellate courts "can reverse the agency's legal decisions 'where the legal conclusions reached ......