In re Conrad
| Decision Date | 03 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 351-2022 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH CONRAD |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. 481176V
Graeff, Beachley, McDonald, Robert N. (Senior Judge Specially Assigned), JJ.
This case arises from an award by the Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission (the "Commission") of partial death benefits to appellant, Janet Conrad, as a dependent of her late husband, Joseph Conrad, who was an employee of Montgomery County, Maryland (the "County"). Following the Commission's decision, Ms. Conrad petitioned for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, which granted the County's motion for summary judgment. The court found that Ms. Conrad "was partially dependent on the decedent at the time of [his] death," but Ms. Conrad "became wholly self-sufficient immediately after the decedent's death," and therefore, the Commission erred in awarding Ms. Conrad death benefits.
On appeal, Ms. Conrad presents the following questions for this Court's review, which we have rephrased, as follows:
For the reasons set forth below, we agree that the circuit court erred in its analysis regarding Ms. Conrad's dependency status, and therefore, we shall reverse the judgment of the circuit court.
On May 14, 2019, Ms. Conrad filed a claim with the Commission, seeking dependency benefits arising out of her husband's death from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Mr. Conrad, a firefighter for Montgomery County, was diagnosed with COPD and lung cancer in 2012, and he passed away in 2017. Prior to his death, the Commission awarded him workers' compensation benefits for these conditions.
On February 18, 2020, the Commission held an evidentiary hearing to determine Ms. Conrad's eligibility for death benefits and apportionment of any award of benefits between the County and the Subsequent Injury Fund ("SIF").[1] The County advised that the issues involved the "calculation of the dependency benefits," specifically, whether Ms. Conrad "would be a wholly or a partially dependent" beneficiary. The parties agreed that, notwithstanding Ms. Conrad's dependency status, the benefits award was subject to an offset under LE § 9-503, and accordingly, the total award could not exceed Mr. Conrad's last weekly salary.[2] Ms. Conrad testified that she relied on her husband's income and retirement benefits because she had not been employed at the time of his diagnosis, his death, or for most of their 43 years of marriage; she was only employed for three years, between 2000 and 2003, when she worked for AmeriCorps and Frederick County Public Schools. She acknowledged that she began receiving monthly Social Security benefits in 2015, and she began receiving spousal benefits under her husband's Social Security and retirement benefits after his death in 2017.
On April 1, 2020, the Commission submitted an order with findings on 13 issues, including Ms. Conrad's dependency, and the amount of the offset under LE § 9-503. The Commission found that Ms. Conrad was partially dependent on her husband at the time of his death, and it awarded her $462.73 in weekly compensation benefits to be paid by the County, and $115.68 to be paid by the SIF, not to exceed a total of $75,000.00. This award was based on Mr. Conrad's average weekly wage of $1,939, subject to verification.[3] The Commission further ordered the County to pay $1,113 in funeral expenses.
On April 6, 2020, Ms. Conrad filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. On February 7, 2022, the court held a hearing on Ms. Conrad's motion for summary judgment and the County's cross-motion for partial summary judgment, specifically on the issue of "whether or not [Ms. Conrad] can be classified as wholly dependent on the deceased as well as . . . the time of determining that."
Ms. Conrad argued that the Commission erred by calculating her dependency from the time of Mr. Conrad's death in 2017, rather than "the time of the disablement" in 2012. Although Ms. Conrad was receiving approximately $10,000 per year in Social Security benefits at the time of her husband's death, she was not receiving Social Security benefits at the time of his disablement, and her Social Security benefits "ha[d] nothing to do with [Mr. Conrad's] work-related condition or the benefit that they're receiving." Moreover, Ms. Conrad contended that her Social Security benefits should not preclude her from being found wholly dependent because she was only receiving $9,000 a year in these benefits, after taxes, and "she wouldn't have been able to subsist entirely" on this amount alone.
The County argued that the relevant time to determine Ms. Conrad's dependency status was at the time of Mr. Conrad's death, even if she was a dependent at the time of his disablement. Upon Mr. Conrad's death, Ms. Conrad began receiving his total pension by way of a survivor annuity, and therefore, she became "wholly self-supporting." The County pointed to financial statements from 2017, which indicated that Ms. Conrad was entitled to approximately $63,000 from her husband's pension benefits, $22,000 as the beneficiary of his Social Security benefits, and $10,900 from her own Social Security benefits.[4] With respect to the Social Security benefits, the County contended that such benefits are income for purposes of workers' compensation because these benefits constitute a source of income in other areas of Maryland law. It would be a "windfall" to award Ms. Conrad additional benefits because, if she were to receive death benefits on top of the pension and Social Security benefits, her annual income would amount to $150,000 or more. Indeed, the County stated that, in 2018, the first full year after her husband's death, Ms. Conrad had a higher income than her husband had before his death; between her husband's pension and the couple's combined Social Security benefits, Ms. Conrad's income exceeded Mr. Conrad's approximately $97,000 in earnings from before his death.
On April 1, 2022, the court granted the County's motion with respect to Ms. Conrad's "partial dependency at the time of Mr. Conrad's death" and the Commission's "payment of death benefits to an individual who was not entitled to them under the law." The court noted that the County had conceded that Mr. Conrad's disease was compensable, and that Ms. Conrad was his dependent, but it contested whether Ms. Conrad's dependency was whole or partial at the time of Mr. Conrad's death. The court affirmed the Commission's determination that, under LE § 9-682, Ms. Conrad's dependency should be based on her husband's date of death, rather than his disablement. The court also agreed with the Commission's finding that Ms. Conrad's "Social Security Retirement benefits barred a finding of whole dependency." Specifically, Ms. Conrad was partially dependent because her Social Security benefits, including both her personal benefits as a primary claimant and those that she received as her husband's beneficiary, constituted 35 percent of the household income, and were therefore a "consequential source or means of maintenance."
The court concluded, however, that it was erroneous for the Commission to award benefits, even though Ms. Conrad was partially dependent at the time of her husband's death. The court noted that, although the Commission may require the County to pay weekly death benefits "during the period of partial dependency," pursuant to LE § 9-682, the court found that Ms. Conrad "became wholly self-supporting immediately after the death of her husband," when Ms. Conrad began receiving her husband's County pension benefits, plus increased Social Security benefits as the surviving spouse. In 2018, Ms. Conrad's income was $100,096, an amount that exceeded the couple's household income prior to Mr. Conrad's death by $2,877. The court stated that "the legislature did not intend for the Act to make surviving spouses better off than they were during their married life," and the Commission may require the County to pay weekly death benefits only during the period of partial dependency. The court found that the Commission's award exceeded its powers by awarding weekly benefits beginning November 27, 2017, when Ms. Conrad "was wholly self-sufficient, no longer partially dependent, and no longer eligible for [workers' compensation] death benefits." The court concluded that, although the Commission correctly found that Ms. Conrad was partially dependent at the time of her husband's death, that partial dependency did not continue after his death, and the Commission erred, as a matter of law, in awarding her benefits. The court granted the County's motion for summary judgment and ordered that the case be remanded to the Commission for a new order based upon the court's findings.
This appeal followed.
To continue reading
Request your trial