Roberts v. Montgomery Cnty.

• Decision Date: 28 January 2014
• Docket Number: No. 39,Sept. Term, 2013.,39
• Citation: 436 Md. 591,84 A.3d 87
• Parties: Thaddus ROBERTS v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Maryland.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

436 Md. 591

84 A.3d 87

Thaddus ROBERTS

v.MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Maryland.

No. 39, Sept. Term, 2013.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 28, 2014.

Kenneth M. Berman (H. David Leibensperger, Berman, Sobin, Gross, Feldman & Darby, LLP, Gaithersburg, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.

Wendy Karpel, Associate County Attorney (Marc P. Hansen, County Attorney, Kathryn Lloyd, Associate County Attorney, Rockville, MD), on brief, for Respondent.

Argued before BARBERA, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, ADKINS, McDONALD, and WATTS, JJ.

BATTAGLIA, J.

The present case presents itself in the Workers' Compensation context, as Thaddus Roberts, Petitioner, a paid firefighter employed by Montgomery County, Respondent, filed a claim pursuant to the Maryland Workers' Compensation Act,¹ alleging that he was injured in an accident that occurred when he was leaving the Washington Capital Beltway on his motorcycle, on his way from physical training at Friendly High School, located in Fort Washington, to Fire Station 19, in Silver Spring.

The operative facts are largely undisputed ² and are derived from Mr. Roberts's affidavit filed in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, as well as his testimony before the Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission (“Commission”). Mr. Roberts, at the time of his injury, was working in a “light duty” ³ position with the Fire Department, due to problems related to a prior compensable back injury and was assigned to Fire Department Headquarters, located in Rockville, as opposed to his “regular duty” station, which was Fire Station 19. While on light duty, Mr. Roberts worked four ten-hour shifts per week, starting at 7 a.m. and ending at 5 p.m. Mr. Roberts, as with other firefighters including those on light duty, were encouraged by the Fire Department to engage in two hours of physical training per shift, was paid during those two hours, and could physically train at any location of his choice.

While Mr. Roberts was on light duty, approximately once per month, he would “stop by” Fire Station 19 to pick up his “work mail,” ⁴ left for him at that location, “which included things such as interoffice memos and letters from Montgomery County's Department of Human Resources,” and was a practice observed by firefighters on light duty, about which Mr. Roberts's supervisors were aware.⁵ On the day of Mr. Roberts's accident and resulting injury, he arrived at Friendly High School around 7 a.m. and trained until 8:30 a.m., at which time he left and traveled to gather the mail at Fire Station 19. En route, at approximately 9:15 a.m., Mr. Roberts was involved in the accident that is the genesis of the instant case.⁶

Montgomery County contested Mr. Roberts's claim at the Commission, ⁷ alleging that Mr. Roberts's injury did not arise out of or in the course of his employment, among other issues not before us.⁸ The Commission, after a hearing,⁹ disallowed Mr. Roberts's claim in an order, which, in relevant part, provided:

The Commission finds on the first issue that the claimant did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment as alleged to have occurred on October 28, 2010. Therefore, the remaining issues are not applicable, and the Commission will disallow the claim filed herein.

Mr. Roberts then filed a “Petition for Judicial Review,” as well as a “Request for Jury Trial,” ¹⁰ in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and, thereafter, a Motion for Summary Judgment. The County responded and denied liability, as well as filed an Opposition to Claimant's Motion for Summary Judgment and a Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment, in which it alleged that Mr. Roberts's injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, because he was “going and coming” to work at the time of his injury: “He was not traveling between two sections of the Employer's premises, nor was he injured in an employer-provided parking lot. He was simply on his way to work, driving his own motorcycle. None of the exceptions set forth in [ Board of County Commissioners for Frederick County v. Vache, 349 Md. 526, 709 A.2d 155 (1998)¹¹] apply, and his claim is barred by the going and coming rule.” Mr. Roberts countered that his injury was compensable, because “ but for” his “work-related duties of physical training and receiving his work mail, he would not have been travelling [sic] between Friendly High School and Station 19,” and he was in a place he could reasonably be expected to be in going from one “work-related duty” of physical training, to another, checking his work mail, which was “acquiesced to by Mr. Roberts's supervisors.” The Circuit Court granted the County's Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment denying Mr. Roberts's claim, ruling orally and later in writing that Mr. Roberts was not entitled to workers' compensation, because the injury occurred while “he was coming and going” to work.

Mr. Roberts noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, of which a panel, in an unreported opinion, affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court, over a dissent by Judge Albert Matricciani. The majority of the three-judge panel of the Court of Special Appeals agreed with the County and determined that Mr. Roberts was only “at work” when he was at Headquarters, so that his injury was not compensable, because he was going to work at the time of his accident:

Although Roberts's schedule on October 28, 2010, consisted of four 10–hour shifts per week, beginning at 7 a.m. and ending at 5 p.m., and his pay for the day began at 7 a.m., he did not report to work at the Rockville headquarters because he “never made it.” We deduce from this evidence that although Roberts was paid for ten hours per day, he was “at work” only when he was at the Rockville Headquarters.

The majority, moreover, reasoned:

Although Roberts and his co-workers check their mail periodically and their supervisors “were aware of the practice,” neither party provided evidence to show that checking work-related mail was an official part of the employees' work duties rather than waiting until it was forwarded to their place of assignment. Thus, we presume that employees were permitted to check their mail on their own time and at their own risk.

In addition, in this case, Roberts was injured while on his way to Station 19 to pick up his office mail. There may have been a different outcome if Roberts had been injured while picking up his mail at Station 19.

Judge Matricciani, however, was “unpersuaded that Roberts was ‘at work’ only when present at the Rockville Headquarters, as the majority indicates.... His work day began at 7 a.m. and continued to 5 p.m.,” and further opined:

Reasonable minds can differ as to whether appellant was “going” to work when he was injured. In my judgment, he would not have been injured “but for” his efforts to keep abreast of his work obligations and, thus, the “positional risk” test favors him under these circumstances. Montgomery Cnty. v. Wade, 345 Md. 1, 9–10 (1997) (“An injury is said to ‘arise out of’ one's employment when it results from some obligation, condition, or incident of the employment.”); see also Livering v. Richardson's Rest., 374 Md. 566, 575 (2003) (“The positional-risk test is essentially a ‘but for’ test”).

We granted certiorari, Roberts v. Montgomery County, 431 Md. 444, 66 A.3d 47 (2013), to consider the following questions: ¹²

1. A compensable workers' compensation injury is one that occurs in a place the employee would not have been “but for” his employment and while engaged in an activity incident to his employment. Mr. Roberts was involved in a car accident while he was already on duty, being paid, and traveling between his employer-encouraged physical training session and the firehouse where he worked. Did the majority in the Court of Special Appeals err in upholding the denial of workers' compensation to Mr. Roberts?

2. The “going and coming” rule bars workers' compensation benefits for injuries that occur while an employee is on his way to or from his job at the beginning or end of the day, or for a lunch period. Mr. Roberts was involved in a car accident while he was already on duty, being paid, and traveling between his employer-encouraged physical training session and the firehouse where he worked. Did the majority in the Court of Special Appeals err in holding that the “going and coming” rule bars Mr. Roberts' entitlement to workers' compensation benefits?

3. Did the majority in the Court of Special Appeals below err in upholding the denial of workers' compensation to Mr. Roberts, where its decision was premised on facts not contained in the record?

In considering these questions, we must determine whether, as a matter of law, Mr. Roberts sustained a “compensable injury.” ¹³ We will hold he did and explain.

The Workers' Compensation Act, located at Sections 9–101 through 9–1201 of the Labor and Employment Article, was intended “ ‘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.’ ” Johnson v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 430 Md. 368, 377, 61 A.3d 33, 38 (2013), quoting Montgomery County v. Deibler, 423 Md. 54, 61, 31 A.3d 191, 195 (2011), quoting in turn Howard County Assoc. for Retarded Citizens, Inc. v. Walls, 288 Md. 526, 531, 418 A.2d 1210, 1214 (1980). The Act is remedial in nature and must be interpreted as such, “ ‘in order to effectuate its benevolent purposes.’ ” Deibler, 423 Md. at 61, 31 A.3d at 195, quoting Design Kitchen & Baths v. Lagos, 388 Md. 718, 724, 882 A.2d 817, 821 (2005), quoting in turn Harris v. Board of Education of Howard County, 375 Md. 21, 57, 825 A.2d 365, 387 (2003); seeSection 9–102(a) of the Labor and Employment Article (“This title shall be construed to carry out its general purpose.”).

Section 9–501(a) of the...