Fisher v. Eastern Correctional Institution
425 Md. 699
| Md. | 2012Background
- Fisher was terminated from Eastern Correctional Institution and timely appealed to the head of the principal unit within 15 days.
- The head of the principal unit (Secretary Maynard) did not issue a written decision within 15 days.
- Fisher’s counsel sent multiple letters seeking a decision and eventually deemed the appeal denied by operation of law.
- Fisher then sought review by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) within 10 days after the deemed denial.
- Respondent argued Fisher’s DBM appeal was untimely because it occurred more than 10 days after a decision was not issued.
- Maryland Courts ultimately held that the DBM appeal deadline runs from the earlier event—either a timely written decision or a deemed denial under 11-108(b)(2)—not from silence alone.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 11-108(b)(2) and 11-109(e)(2) render a deemed denial a trigger for the 11-110(a)(1) deadline. | Fisher argued denial is not effective until a written decision or deemed denial triggers the 10-day clock. | Respondent contends the 10-day deadline runs from the deemed denial or written decision, whichever occurs first. | 11-110(a)(1) deadline runs from the earlier of a written decision or a deemed denial. |
| Whether the deadline interpretation should depend on whether the head of the unit actually issues a written decision within 15 days. | 11-109(e)(2) imposes a mandatory duty to decide within 15 days. | Non-decision within 15 days constitutes a denial under 11-108(b)(2). | The deadline is anchored to the earlier event (decision or deemed denial), not contingent on a timely written decision. |
| Does the Accardi doctrine apply to Secretary Maynard’s failure to issue a decision? | Accardi violation could invalidate the agency decision. | Accardi not properly raised or within certiorari scope; no ruling on it. | The Court declined to resolve Accardi issue on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Gloria H., 410 Md. 562 (Md. 2009) (statutory interpretation framework and aim to effect legislative intent)
- Geiger v. State, 371 Md. 125 (Md. 2002) (structure of remedial statutory schemes; harmony among provisions)
- Smack v. Dep't of Health and Mental Hygiene, 378 Md. 298 (Md. 2003) (interpretation of overlapping health/administrative statutes)
- Lockshin v. Semsker, 412 Md. 257 (Md. 2010) (ambiguity resolution and statutory harmony rules)
- Breslin v. Powell, 421 Md. 266 (Md. 2011) (interpretation of time limits within administrative processes)
- Gardner v. State, 420 Md. 1 (Md. 2011) (interpretation of Rhode Island-style statutory integration principles? (note: Md. case cited in text))
- State v. Johnson, 415 Md. 413 (Md. 2010) (interpretation of competing constructions within a statutory scheme)
- Lark v. Montgomery Hospice, Inc., 414 Md. 215 (Md. 2010) (reasonableness and practical interpretation of statutes)
- Witte v. Azarian, 369 Md. 518 (Md. 2002) (statutory interpretation of administrative processes)