Gang v. Montgomery Cnty.
211 A.3d 355
Md.2019Background
- On Sept. 17, 2011, Montgomery County correctional officer Peter Gang was injured at work and received a May 2012 Commission Award for permanent partial disability at $157/week for 70 weeks (14% loss).
- Nearly four years later Gang filed a "Request for Document Correction" asserting he qualified as a public safety employee and thus was entitled to a higher statutory rate ($314/week); the Commission amended the 2012 award retroactively.
- Montgomery County sought rehearing, then judicial review; the Circuit Court affirmed the Commission; the Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding the Commission lacked authority to retroactively modify the award.
- The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to resolve whether the Commission’s continuing jurisdiction under Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. § 9-736(b) authorizes retroactive readjustment of rate within five years when the original award reflected a mistake of law.
- The Court of Appeals held the Commission had authority to reopen and retroactively correct the rate where the modification was sought within the five-year limitations period and was based on an error, reversing the Court of Special Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gang) | Defendant's Argument (Montgomery Cty.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 9-736(b) authorizes the Commission to reopen and retroactively adjust a rate of compensation within five years when prior award resulted from a mistake of law | § 9-736(b)’s continuing jurisdiction permits modification (including retroactive correction) if applied for within five years | § 9-736(a) (readjustment for aggravation/diminution/termination) limits § 9-736(b); Commission may only prospectively adjust rates | Held: § 9-736(b) independently grants broad continuing jurisdiction to modify prior orders (including retroactive corrections) if application is within five years; § 9-736(a) does not cabin § 9-736(b) to prospective relief |
| Whether Gang waived the right to seek correction by not appealing, moving for rehearing, or following Commission form/pleading rules | No waiver: statutory continuing jurisdiction permits Commission action despite procedural failures when request timely filed | Yes waiver/forfeiture because claimant failed to pursue appeals or required motions and did not strictly follow Commission procedures | Held: No waiver; prior cases permit reopening despite failure to appeal/rehear when modification timely sought; procedural formality did not bar relief here |
| Whether the Commission may retroactively correct the rate (not just prospectively) | Retroactive correction is necessary relief when final payments already made and application is timely | Commission limited to prospective readjustment under § 9-736(a) or only limited circumstances permitted retroactive relief | Held: Retroactive modification is permitted under § 9-736(b) where timely and justified by mistake or error of law |
| Whether the five-year limitations period is impermissibly extended by such a correction | Gang’s application was within five years of last payment, so limitations not extended | County argued the Commission’s action effectively extended limits or violated precedent (Vest/Seal) | Held: No impermissible tolling or extension; action was timely under § 9-736(b)(3) so statute of limitations not prolonged |
Key Cases Cited
- Electrical Gen. Corp. v. LaBonte, 164 A.3d 157 (Md. 2017) (§ 9-736(b) permits modification of prior findings where justified)
- Stevenson v. Hill, 185 A. 551 (Md. 1936) (Commission may reopen prior awards to correct errors; §54 predecessor supports broad revisory power)
- Potomac Abatement, Inc. v. Sanchez, 37 A.3d 972 (Md. 2012) (Commission retains jurisdiction to hear new benefits requests even while prior order on appeal)
- Sealy Furniture of Maryland v. Miller, 740 A.2d 594 (Md. 1999) (Revisory power is broad but not unlimited; limits exist where other statutory directives apply)
- Jung v. Southland Corp., 717 A.2d 387 (Md. 1998) (Commission cannot override other clear statutory directives via § 9-736(b))
- Pressman v. State Accident Fund, 228 A.2d 443 (Md. 1967) (Commission’s continuing jurisdiction allows adjudication of issues independent from those on appeal)