Spevak v. Montgomery Cnty.
| Docket Number | 44, Sept. Term, 2021 |
| Decision Date | 15 August 2022 |
| Citation | 480 Md. 562,281 A.3d 171 |
| Parties | Patrick SPEVAK v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Maryland |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Kenneth Berman (Brandon Cooper, Berman, Sobin, Gross, LLP, Gaithersburg, MD), on brief, for Petitioner
Argued by Wendy Karpel, Associate County Attorney (Kathryn Lloyd, Associate County Attorney, Marc P. Hansen, County Attorney, John P. Markovs, Deputy County Attorney, and Edward B. Lattner, Division of Government Operations of Rockville, MD), for Respondent
Argued before:* Getty, C.J., Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Sally D. Adkins (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), Robert N. McDonald (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) JJ.
Getty, C.J. Patrick Spevak, Petitioner, served as a firefighter in Montgomery County, Maryland from 1979 until 2010. In 2007, Mr. Spevak experienced a service-related back injury, which ultimately led to his retirement in 2010. Upon retirement, Mr. Spevak began collecting service-connected total disability retirement benefits. Several years after Mr. Spevak retired, he developed a compensable degree of occupational hearing loss related to his employment. Mr. Spevak filed for workers’ compensation benefits, and the Workers’ Compensation Commission (the "Commission") found that Mr. Spevak's hearing loss entitled him to $322.00 payable weekly for a certain number of weeks. Although Mr. Spevak was awarded compensation for his hearing loss, the Commission determined that the entirety be offset under Md. Code (1991, 2016 Repl. Vol., 2021 Supp.), Labor and Employment Article ("LE") § 9-610. The Circuit Court for Montgomery County affirmed the Commission's use of the offset provision and granted the cross-motion for summary judgment of the Respondent, Montgomery County (the "County"). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the circuit court.
In this case, we consider whether the Court of Special Appeals erred in affirming the circuit court's grant of summary judgment. Precisely, we consider whether Mr. Spevak's service-connected total disability retirement benefits are "similar" to his permanent partial disability workers’ compensation benefits. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the Court of Special Appeals.
Mr. Spevak served as a firefighter in Montgomery County, Maryland from 1979 until 2010 when he retired due to a service-related back injury that occurred in 2007. Upon his 2010 retirement, Mr. Spevak began collecting $1,859.07 per week in service-connected total disability retirement benefits. Several years after his retirement, Mr. Spevak developed hearing loss related to his employment from "exposure to loud noises, such as fire engines, sirens, and alarms." In light of his hearing loss, Mr. Spevak filed a workers’ compensation claim on June 24, 2016. A hearing occurred on March 1, 2017, and the Commission issued an order on March 28, 2017 finding that Mr. Spevak's employment as a firefighter caused his hearing loss. The order instructed the County to reimburse Mr. Spevak for the cost of his hearing aids.
On April 3, 2017, Mr. Spevak filed issues with the Commission to determine the nature and extent of his hearing loss. In a hearing held on June 16, 2017, the County argued that Mr. Spevak's compensation for his hearing loss should be offset because Mr. Spevak received service-connected total disability retirement benefits due to his back injury, which compensated him for wage loss. On July 13, 2017, the Commission issued an order finding that Mr. Spevak suffered "21% loss of use of the left ear/hearing loss (26.25 weeks) and 0% loss of use of both ears (tinnitus) (0 weeks); at the rate of $322.00, payable weekly ... for a period of 26.25 weeks." The Commission also found that the full amount awarded for Mr. Spevak's hearing loss was offset because his "weekly retirement benefits exceed [the] permanent partial disability rate."
Mr. Spevak filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on August 1, 2017. Three days later, this Court published its opinion in Reger v. Washington County Board of Education , which interpreted the offset provision contained in LE § 9-610. 455 Md. 68, 166 A.3d 142 (2017). On November 22, 2017, Mr. Spevak filed a motion to remand to the Commission. A hearing before the Commission occurred on May 1, 2019 to consider (1) whether Mr. Spevak's hearing loss compensation is subject to an offset, and (2) whether the Subsequent Injury Fund1 should be a party to the case. In an order issued on May 3, 2019, the Commission determined that it lacked jurisdiction to reconsider the offset and dismissed the Subsequent Injury Fund as a party due to a lack of evidence showing liability.
On February 26, 2020, Mr. Spevak filed a motion to reinstate his appeal. Over the County's objection, Mr. Spevak's appeal was reinstated on April 29, 2020. On May 5, 2020, Mr. Spevak filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the Commission erred in offsetting Mr. Spevak's hearing loss compensation. The County opposed the motion and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, which the circuit court granted on October 14, 2020. Mr. Spevak appealed to the Court of Special Appeals.
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment. Spevak v. Montgomery Cty. , 251 Md. App. 674, 707, 256 A.3d 329 (2021). The intermediate appellate court reasoned that Mr. Spevak's "service-connected total disability retirement compensates for any and all work-related injuries he sustained in his employment with Montgomery County" and therefore precluded him from "receiv[ing] a permanent partial workers’ compensation award." Id. Mr. Spevak petitioned for a writ of certiorari , which we granted on November 10, 2021. Spevak v. Montgomery Cty. , 476 Md. 417, 263 A.3d 512 (2021).
In this case, we consider whether the Court of Special Appeals erred in affirming the circuit court and the Commission regarding the applicability of the offset provision in LE § 9-610. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the Court of Special Appeals.
When reviewing decisions of an administrative agency, this Court does not review the decisions of the circuit court or the Court of Special Appeals. Broadway Servs., Inc. v. Comptroller , 478 Md. 200, 214, 272 A.3d 800 (2022). In an appeal of a Commission decision, this Court shall determine whether the Commission "(1) justly considered all of the facts about the accidental personal injury, occupational disease, or compensable hernia
; (2) exceeded the powers granted to it under this title; or (3) misconstrued the law and facts applicable in the case decided." LE § 9-745(c). Generally, decisions of the Commission are "presumed to be prima facie correct[.]" LE § 9-745(b)(1). The presumption of correctness does not extend to questions of law, which this Court independently reviews. Reger , 455 Md. at 95, 166 A.3d 142 (citing Hollingsworth v. Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC , 448 Md. 648, 655, 141 A.3d 90 (2016) ).
A court shall grant a motion for summary judgment "if the motion and response show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the party in whose favor judgment is entered is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Md. Rule 2-501(f). This Court reviews whether a court correctly granted a motion for summary judgment de novo . Chateau Foghorn LP v. Hosford , 455 Md. 462, 482, 168 A.3d 824 (2017) (citations omitted). In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we independently review the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and "determine whether the parties properly generated a dispute of material fact, and, if not, whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Castruccio v. Estate of Castruccio , 456 Md. 1, 16, 169 A.3d 431 (2017) (citations omitted).
During the 1910s, states across the nation began adopting workers’ compensation statutes in response to "(1) increases in dangerous employment; (2) public awareness of the problems associated with workplace accidents; (3) employers’ concerns about a liability climate unfavorable to them; and (4) a more than doubling of the number of workers[ ] in labor unions."
Clifford B. Sobin, Maryland Workers’ Compensation , § 1:1 at 2 (2021–2022 ed.). By 1930, most states enacted workers’ compensation legislation. Id. The General Assembly enacted Maryland's Workers’ Compensation Act in 1914. 1914 Md. Laws, ch. 800.
In the original enactment of the Workers’ Compensation Act, local government employees received unique treatment. Blevins v. Baltimore Cty. , 352 Md. 620, 635, 724 A.2d 22 (1999). Initially, local government employees were not "entitled to the benefits" of the Workers’ Compensation Act if a "State law, City Charter or Municipal Ordinance, provision equal or better than that given under the terms of this Act is made for municipal employees injured in the course of employment[.]" 1914 Md. Laws, ch. 800. In 1971, the General Assembly enacted an amended Workers’ Compensation Act, which provided, "whether as part of a pension system or otherwise, any benefit or benefits are furnished [to the] employees of employers[,] ... the benefit or benefits when furnished by the employer shall satisfy and discharge ... the liability or obligation of the employer[.]" 1971 Md. Laws, ch. 785. The statute continued to provide that "[s]hould any benefits so furnished be less than those provided for in this Article[,] the employer shall be liable to furnish the additional benefit as will make up the difference between the benefit furnished and the similar benefit required" under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Id. ; See Sobin, § 1:9 at 9–10 () (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Emergency Remedy by the Md. State Bd. of Elections
... ... Argued: October 7, 2022 ... ... Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No ... C-15-CV-22-003258 ... Fader, ... C.J., ... meaningless or nugatory.'" Spevak v. Montgomery ... County , 480 Md. 562, 572 (2022) ... (quoting Moore v. RealPage ... ...