Injured Workers' Insurance Fund v. Subsequent Injury Fund, 112 A.3d 1092

The Subsequent Injury Fund (SIF) is funded solely by a statutory 6.5% assessment the Workers’ Compensation Commission imposes when it makes an "award . . . for permanent disability or death" or approves a settlement (LE § 9-806).
Two employers (MTA/IWIF and Baltimore County) contested SIF’s demand that the assessment be calculated on the Commission’s full award amount rather than on the reduced amount after a statutory offset for retirement benefits.
In Glorioso (MTA/IWIF), the Commission awarded $46,050 (30% loss) but applied an offset for disability retirement, reducing employer liability; SIF sought 6.5% on the full award.
In Shipp (Balt. County), the Commission awarded $174,825 (50% loss) then adjusted the weekly rate due to a service retirement offset, reducing the employer’s payable amount; the County paid 6.5% on the reduced amount, and SIF sought the difference.
The Commission ruled SIF was entitled to 6.5% based on the full award in both cases; the circuit courts affirmed, and the employers appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (SIF)	Defendant's Argument (Employers)	Held
Whether LE § 9-806 requires the 6.5% assessment be calculated on the Commission’s full award for permanent disability or only on the amount payable after retirement offsets	Statute requires 6.5% on each "award" for permanent disability; the award’s dollar amount is fixed by the Commission and does not change because an offset shifts payment to a retirement system	The assessment should be on the actual amount the employer/insurer pays (the amount payable after offsets); employers argued fairness and that Commission lacked jurisdiction to impose a tax-like assessment	Held: 6.5% assessment is imposed on the full award amount for permanent disability (not limited to amount payable after offsets); Commission had jurisdiction to determine assessment
Whether the Commission had jurisdiction to decide the assessment calculation	SIF: Commission has authority under LE § 9-806 to impose and calculate assessments; recent statutory amendments clarify assessments are not taxes	County: Characterized the assessment as a tax and contended Commission lacked authority	Held: Commission has jurisdiction; prior caselaw treating the assessment as a "tax" was superseded by legislative amendment clarifying it is not a tax

Subsequent Injury Fund v. Kraus, 301 Md. 111 (discussing SIF’s role in sharing liability for preexisting conditions)
Subsequent Injury Fund v. Pack, 250 Md. 306 (legislative purpose to encourage hiring handicapped individuals)
Workmen’s Comp. Comm’n v. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Corp., 319 Md. 1 (prior characterization of the assessment as a tax; later abrogated by statute)
Cooper v. Wicomico Cnty., Dep’t of Pub. Works, 284 Md. 576 (assessment is a primary source of SIF funds and essential to solvency)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Holmes, 416 Md. 346 (standard of appellate review for Commission summary judgment)
W.M. Schlosser Co. v. Uninsured Employers’ Fund, 414 Md. 195 (scope of appellate review of agency decisions)
Montgomery Cnty. v. Deibler, 423 Md. 54 (deference to agency statutory interpretations)
Stachowski v. Sysco Food Servs. of Balt., Inc., 402 Md. 506 (weight afforded agency interpretations from adversarial proceedings)